PRIVATE BUSINESS

Broads Authority Bill  (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.
	 To be read a Third time on Thursday 24 April.

Bournemouth Borough Council Bill  [Lords]  (By Order)
	 — 
	Canterbury City Council Bill  (By Order)
	 — 
	Leeds City Council Bill (By Order)
	 — 
	London Local Authorities (Shopping Bags) Bill  (By Order)
	 — 
	Manchester City Council Bill  [ Lords ]  (By Order)
	 — 
	Nottingham City Council Bill  (By Order)
	 — 
	Reading Borough Council Bill  (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.
	 To be read a Second time on Thursday 24 April.

Oral Answers to Questions

BUSINESS, ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM

The Secretary of State was asked—

Anglo-French Nuclear Co-operation

Michael Jack: If he will make a statement on the Anglo-French agreement on nuclear co-operation.

John Hutton: At the Anglo-French summit last week, in order to improve the speed and effectiveness of nuclear development projects, our national regulators agreed to establish a joint project approach to the regulation of the European pressurised water reactor should it proceed to the next stage of generic design assessment. The project will include ways of dividing up assessment work on specific aspects of the design, sharing experience and technical findings from their safety and security assessments, and looking for opportunities for further staff exchanges.

Michael Jack: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for providing that level of detail. It has been difficult to obtain a copy of what was agreed, so will he lay a copy of that and any other details in the Library of the House for further study? May I seek his reassurance that, welcome as co-operation with the French is in advancing the cause of new nuclear reactors in this country, the agreement in no way rules out others, such as Toshiba Westinghouse, playing their part in expanding new nuclear capacity, both in the reactor design and the provision of fuel manufactured in the United Kingdom?

John Hutton: I will certainly ensure that there is a proper statement for the right hon. Gentleman and others who are interested to peruse. He is perfectly right to say that the UK Government are giving active consideration to other technologies and designs for new nuclear reactors. The agreement that we have made in relation to regulatory co-operation with the French authorities is a perfectly sensible one and I hope that it will shorten the time required for the important reactor assessment work, but we are also looking at other designs, and the agreement does not exclude proper consideration of other technologies.

David Taylor: In this brave new world that our Prime Minister and the French President have been fashioning, have they taken account of the full commercial cost of decommissioning and nuclear waste disposal? A report published by Ian Jackson just a few days ago estimated that unless the charges to the new nuclear station operators are kept at about 10 per cent. or less of the full commercial cost being charged to external and foreign disposers now, the whole project will be imperilled and we shall be adding yet further to the £73 billion national cost of cleaning up existing waste. That is not a very impressive equation, is it?

John Hutton: The Government are looking at and taking advice on a variety of different sources, as one would imagine, but it is important, as we have always made clear both in the White Paper and other ministerial statements, that we expect the operators of any new nuclear plants to meet the full commercial costs of decommissioning and waste disposal. Dr. Tim Stone, my principal adviser on the matter, is in consultation with the potential developers as we speak, a document has been published and the process is full, transparent and open. We are building a proper margin into the fixed price for waste disposal and decommissioning to ensure that the taxpayer does not meet any residual liabilities, and it is important that we are all clear that we should proceed with new nuclear development in the UK on that basis.

Steve Webb: The Government claim 100,000 new jobs from new nuclear, presumably some of them British. Will the Secretary of State place in the Library a copy of the detailed analysis on which he bases that number, and will he undertake a similar analysis of quite how many more new jobs could be created from a credible renewables and energy efficiency strategy?

John Hutton: The hon. Gentleman and others want to present the argument as a choice between nuclear and renewables. My firm belief is that we should do both. Doing both will create significant economic and energy gains for the United Kingdom. I am happy to explain to the hon. Gentleman in more detail the numbers that he cited. However, in relation to renewables, there is a significant opportunity for significant engineering jobs as well. We should proceed along both tracks, not just one. If we can do that sensibly—and I think that we can—our people can look forward to a new generation of green-collar jobs that will provide an important opportunity for hundreds of thousands of British workers and their families to enjoy a prosperous future. We should embrace that.

Michael Weir: Whatever the Secretary of State's plans for a new generation of Anglo-French nuclear plants, he will be aware that a majority in the Scottish Parliament, including many from his own party, are thoroughly opposed to new nuclear plants. Will he take this opportunity to deny weekend reports that he is seeking to remove the Scottish Parliament's planning powers in respect of nuclear stations?

John Hutton: I am not going to comment on inaccurate and ridiculous press comment. In relation to nuclear power, we have to think seriously about energy interdependence within the United Kingdom. My concern about the stance taken by the hon. Gentleman and his party is that there is a real danger that that interdependence will be compromised. It is one thing for Scottish National party politicians to strut around with their rhetoric about nuclear, but another for them to continue, at the same time, to rely on nuclear power generated in the United Kingdom.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Further to the Secretary of State's answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), why has it taken until now for the Government suddenly to wake up to the fact that we should be co-operating with France over nuclear power? In 2005, for example, the Italians took a 12.5 per cent. stake in a major nuclear power plant right on the Normandy coast, our nearest geographical point in France. Is it not the case that over 10 years, the Government have been very indolent in planning for our nuclear power decommissioning and left the UK very exposed, given the length of time that it will take to build a new nuclear power station?

John Hutton: There has been significant co-operation for many years between French and UK regulatory authorities. What I announced today, and what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agreed with the President of France, Monsieur Sarkozy, was an acceleration of that programme, not its beginning.
	On the hon. Gentleman's wider point on nuclear matters, I must say that it is pretty tongue-in-cheek of him to come here and complain about dilatoriness in relation to nuclear power; I have counted four different policy changes on nuclear from the Conservative party in the past six months.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I like to give the Secretary of State a little leeway, but we should now get back to ministerial replies.

Construction Industry

Roger Williams: If he will allocate responsibility for policy on the construction industry to a Minister with sole responsibility for that matter.

John Hutton: My noble Friend Baroness Vadera, the Minister with responsibility for business and competitiveness in my Department, already has responsibility for the construction sector.

Roger Williams: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Construction is such an important factor, not only in the local economies but in the national economy, that many of the industry's stakeholders despair at the fact that no single Minister is responsible for construction. The responsibility is spread between a number of Ministers and Departments. Indeed, the Federation of Master Builders is very concerned about skills in case the workers do not continue to operate in this country, and there is a question of design as well. The construction industry deserves a single Minister. When will the Secretary of State deliver on that?

John Hutton: As I just said, there is a Minister in the Government with overall responsibility for the construction sector. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the prospects for the sector look incredibly positive. Major investment is going into Britain's infrastructure developments for the future, including Crossrail and the M25 extension. There are major opportunities for the sector. I hope that he agrees that the construction industry has prospered in the past 10 years and that it looks set to prosper in the next 10 years.

Barry Sheerman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this week we have been celebrating much in respect of "Constructing Excellence" and the training around it? Most people in the industry are pleased with the current arrangements. However, does he agree that one thing that we should look at carefully is the sustainability of construction, in terms of using the supply chain to draw through good training and apprenticeships and using our trading and subcontracting system to get more measures for sustainable construction and a low-carbon footprint?

John Hutton: I strongly agree. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government are pursuing a number of initiatives in that area, including the zero-carbon housing initiative and others. In the next few years, I hope that we can make significant progress in shifting towards a more sustainable agenda, as he has suggested that we should.

Henry Bellingham: Will the Secretary of State pay tribute to the work done by the national construction college and CITB-ConstructionSkills, both of which have their headquarters and their main training establishments in west Norfolk in my constituency? They employ a large number of people and play a vital role in nurturing our construction and skills base. Can he give a pledge that the levy will stay in place?

John Hutton: The hon. Gentleman asks me to answer a very tough question. I am happy to express my appreciation and respect for the work that is done in his constituency by the CITB, which does an excellent job in sustaining the skills of the construction sector. As he will know, questions to do with the levy are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Universities, Innovation and Skills.

National Minimum Wage

Jim Sheridan: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the national minimum wage.

John Hutton: The national minimum wage is just one of a number of issues that I discuss with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the national minimum wage for adult workers will increase from £5.52 to £5.73 an hour from this October—around 37 per cent. higher in real terms than at its introduction in 1999.

Jim Sheridan: There is no doubt that the minimum wage legislation has enhanced the life of millions of our constituents, but elements of it need to be reviewed. In my right hon. Friend's discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will he highlight the case of workers who are given tips by the public that are then put towards the minimum wage, so that the consumer in effect subsidises unscrupulous employers? Given that America has now decided to challenge such legislation, will he do likewise and perhaps meet a small delegation of like-minded colleagues?

John Hutton: I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and others who are interested in what is becoming accepted as a very important issue, and I pay tribute to the work that he has done in highlighting it. The Government are looking seriously at the points that he and others have raised, and I look forward to discussing them with him in more detail.

Robert Goodwill: How widespread is the problem of employers undermining the national minimum wage by making their employees, often foreign employees, pay through the nose for substandard accommodation, and what does the Secretary of State intend to do about it?

John Hutton: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's conversion to the merits of the national minimum wage. We welcome all the sinners who repent on the Conservative Benches. There is a problem—that is why we are reinforcing the work that we are doing on enforcing the national minimum wage. Legislation currently in another place that is shortly to come here will improve the enforcement measures and strengthen the penalties. It is wrong for legislation that has been passed in this House to be flouted, and particularly unfair and inappropriate for employers to try to take advantage of migrant workers in the way that the hon. Gentleman mentions. We are determined to crack down on the problem. The law passed by this House must be properly enforced, and we are determined to do that.

Ann Cryer: Further to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill), can I take this a bit further and ask what plans his Department has to bring into the excellent minimum wage legislation workers who are involved in temporary and agency work? May I also ask about those, mainly women, who are involved in home working and who are paid peanuts much of the time?

John Hutton: The national minimum wage legislation deals with the issue of home workers through the provisions on piece rates, and temporary and agency workers are covered by the legislation itself. We are in discussion with a variety of interested groups about how we can take forward discussions in Europe on the agency workers directive. I believe that progress is being made on that, and I hope that a further statement will be made in due course.

Post Office Closures

Simon Hughes: What recent assessment he has made of the impact of post office closures on local economies.

Patrick McFadden: The local economy is one of a number of factors taken into account by Post Office Ltd in developing its proposals. In the London area, which covers the hon. Gentleman's constituency, there will be no change to the post office currently used by some 89 per cent. of people, and more than 99 per cent. will see no change or be within 1 mile of an alternative branch.

Simon Hughes: In my area, four post offices have been proposed for closure, and the closure of three of them will threaten a parade of shops and the local economy in that part of Southwark. Can the Minister assure me at the Dispatch Box that the Post Office will take into account the effect on the whole business community of each of those closures, and in each case, before any decision, will it talk to the local authority about any alternative that might keep open post offices that are crucial and central to a business, trading and social community?

Patrick McFadden: As I said, Post Office Ltd does take the local economy into account. We have encouraged it to talk to local authorities, and although it takes all such matters into account, I have to remind the hon. Gentleman that this process is happening because the Post Office is losing £500,000 a day, and those losses have to be addressed.

Fiona Mactaggart: In the case of a post office such as the one in Burnham lane in Slough, which is threatened with closure, one of the difficulties that local businesses have pointed out to me is that the alternatives offered are difficult to get to and a relatively long way away. People will have to queue for a long time with parcels, and those who run businesses that require them to send things from home will have their costs added to by a formula that means long queues in alternative post offices. Will the Minister think about that in his decisions?

Patrick McFadden: Another factor that has to be taken into account is the capacity of alternative branches to absorb custom. My hon. Friend is quite right to raise that point, and it is one of the factors that Post Office Ltd will have to look at in making what are difficult decisions.

Mark Pritchard: With 30 post offices in Shropshire due for closure, and three in my constituency—Sambrook, King Street Wellington and Church Aston—does the Minister share the concern of local residents and the many local businesses that have to use those post offices? If he does share the concern of my constituents, and of six of his Cabinet colleagues, will he it put on the record that if a business case is made that those post offices are viable and needed in the community, he will intervene with the Post Office and stop the closures?

Patrick McFadden: With regard to viability, the hon. Gentleman will know that the fact that the Government are putting in up to £1.7 billion in support of the post office network keeps viable thousands of post office branches that would otherwise be threatened with closure. I remind him that his own Front Bench spokesman said during a recent debate:
	"we fully expect the network to shrink in size."—[ Official Report, 19 March 2008; Vol. 473, c. 947.]
	His own party, therefore, accepts the need for closures, too.

Brian Jenkins: May I inform my hon. Friend the Minister that on Monday I met a Post Office representative at the start of the consultation period? He told me that 2,500 post offices were to close. I said, "I think you've got that wrong. It might finish up being 1,983, but every post office should be considered on its merits." What is the point of having a consultation period when I, like many of my colleagues in the House, have been given a figure of three that will shut in our constituencies? Is it because there are three non-viable post offices in everyone's constituency, or are we just sharing the misery out? While going through the consultation period with my constituents, I have recognised that one or two post offices might be non-viable, but not three. What chance of success—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has pointed out that he is not too pleased.

Patrick McFadden: Of the 14,000 branches currently in the network, some 4,000 would run as a commercial network. We do not believe that the network should be reduced to that size, which is why we subsidise it to the extent that we do. As the Post Office made clear last summer, the consultation concerns the detail of how the change is to be implemented, and the overall figures were announced to Parliament in May of last year.

Alistair Carmichael: May I offer to the Minister as a working example the post office in Levenwick in the south end of Shetland, which is due for closure? It operates as part of the shop there, and if the post office closes, the community fears that the shop will not be far behind. If the shop closes, not many people will want to use the campsite in the summer months, and the campsite subsidises the village hall. When he was setting up this whole process in the first place, what instructions did he give to the Post Office about considering such a domino effect on local economies?

Patrick McFadden: The Post Office considered the special and specific circumstances of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. As matters stand, there are more than 70 post offices—I believe that the figure is 73—there, and I understand that six are to go. The access criteria are specifically designed to protect rural and sparsely populated parts of the United Kingdom such as that that the hon. Gentleman represents.

National Minimum Wage

Sharon Hodgson: How many cities were visited by the Government's campaign bus promoting the national minimum wage in the last six months; and how many people used its services.

Patrick McFadden: The national minimum wage bus visited 64 locations during a nine-week tour this year. The team spoke directly to approximately 90,000 people and distributed around 130,000 leaflets. The bus campaign also received extensive media coverage, which reached many more people. That is only one element of the minimum wage information campaign, which also includes posters, online information and radio advertising.

Sharon Hodgson: The minimum wage guidelines have always recognised the special role of volunteers. Can the Minister do more to remove the barriers to volunteering that some voluntary organisations believe exist under the current minimum wage regime, without leaving the door open to the abuse of voluntary workers?

Patrick McFadden: My hon. Friend asks an important question, which many leading voluntary organisations have also raised with us. I am glad to tell her that the Government have tabled an amendment to the Employment Bill, which is currently being discussed in Parliament, to broaden the range of expenses that can be paid to volunteers without unintentionally triggering entitlement to the minimum wage. That will remove a hurdle to volunteering and assist volunteers, who may need help with, for example, child care costs. It is an important step to boost volunteering in the country.

Small Business Regulation

Jim Cunningham: What recent steps the Government have taken to reduce the burden of regulation on small businesses.

Patrick McFadden: In December 2007, the Government announced that we had delivered £800 million of annual savings for business by reducing red tape. For example, from this Sunday, private companies will no longer need to have a company secretary, saving each of them an estimated £50 to £100.

Jim Cunningham: Has my hon. Friend any plans to reduce red tape, in addition to what he has just announced?

Patrick McFadden: Indeed, we have several other measures. For example, private companies no longer need to hold an annual general meeting, firms will have to apply for small business rate relief only once every five years rather than every year, and heavy goods vehicle operators can carry out their licensing transactions online. Those are examples of several measures that we have taken because, although the World Bank ranks Britain as the sixth best economy in the world to do business, we are not complacent. We want to ensure that Britain remains one of the best places in the world to do business.

Brian Binley: The Minister knows that a batty European directive has been quietly pushed through the House without a vote. It places pub landlords in jeopardy if customers call the staff "love" or "darling"; I personally use "angel".
	More seriously, the directive places a further burden of some £10 million on small business to enforce and monitor it. What steps did the Minister take to stop that farcical additional burden on small businesses? When will the Government start saying no to stupid European regulations, which are unenforceable, encourage troublemakers and generally bring the law into disrepute?

Patrick McFadden: There are certain rules about language in the House, but outwith those, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to call me anything he wishes and I assure him that I will not take offence.
	This country has led the way in making the European Union alive to the need to ensure that regulation is proportionate and not over-burdensome. We have pushed hard for the European Commission to adopt a similar position to the one in this country, where we have a target of reducing the administrative burdens from the European proposals by 25 per cent. We intend to continue to push that with the Commission and other member states.

Lorely Burt: In his Budget speech, the Chancellor announced that there would be
	"radical new proposals to impose a limit on the amount of regulation that can be imposed by Whitehall Departments."—[ Official Report, 12 March 2008; Vol. 473, c. 292.]
	Given that regulation is six times more burdensome on small business than on large business, can the Minister throw any light on when those radical new proposals will be brought forward?

Patrick McFadden: The hon. Lady will also have seen the enterprise strategy that was published alongside the Budget, which precisely discussed consulting on, for example, the introduction of regulatory budgets. She raises the burden of regulation, but let me remind her to look at her party's policy programme, where she may find extensive proposals for additional regulation. Perhaps we should bear that in mind, as well as the Government's record.

Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) is absolutely right. The burden of regulation and bureaucracy falls far more heavily on small business than on large business, which can afford to employ the staff to deal with it. Does the Minister agree that regulation is damaging for smaller business because it takes the attention of the sole proprietor—or perhaps he and a co-partner—away from the purpose of their business, thereby causing the business to suffer and the Government's tax take to fall?

Patrick McFadden: I outlined several measures that are a specific help to small businesses, such as the requirements on AGMs and the lightening of the requirements on company secretaries. We are alive to the burdens on small businesses. That is why we have brought forward those measures and why we have introduced commencement dates, so that people know when any regulations will be introduced. We published the enterprise strategy alongside the Budget precisely to work with business to ensure that any regulatory burden is not over-burdensome.

Mark Prisk: Since 1997, the total burden of regulation has risen by £65 billion, according to the British Chambers of Commerce. Of that total, more than £32 billion has come from one Department—the one represented by those sitting opposite on the Treasury Bench. So despite the Minister's earlier claims and offers for future action, his record shows that his Department is responsible for nearly half the total regulatory burden on small businesses. Given that, will he now stand at the Dispatch Box and tell us exactly how much of his £32 billion he will cut in the next 12 months?

Patrick McFadden: The Department has a commitment to reduce its burden by £700 million. However, I take issue with the allegation that business burdens have risen by £66 billion, because that includes a number of measures that I would not classify as a burden, but which the hon. Gentleman might, such as access to transport for the disabled. Does he think that that is a burden? Those measures also include controls over asbestos. Does he think that health and safety measures such as those are a burden? Some of those measures are not burdens on business, but appropriate regulations, which are a mark of a decent and civilised society.

Post Office Closures

David Heath: What recent discussions he has had with the managing director of Post Office Ltd on the process of consultation on the closure of sub-post offices.

Patrick McFadden: I regularly meet and discuss issues relating to the post office network with the managing director of Post Office Ltd, which of course include the current consultation process, which we are in the middle of, and the proposed new outreach services.

David Heath: There is a widespread and increasingly desperate view that every conceivable question on post offices has already been asked, with not a single acceptable answer given, but let me try this. Of the nine closures in my constituency, at least two—Bayford and Charlton Horethorne—are close to the border with Dorset, which has a different consultation process. Many communities in Dorset will be affected by those closures, but their views are not being sought. Do people not count if they live the wrong side of a line?

Patrick McFadden: Of course they count, but any proposal based on a geographical area will involve people on either side of a line. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, and I am sure that the Post Office will do its best to take local views into account in what is a difficult process. I say again, however, that without the extensive subsidy that the Government are putting in, thousands more branches could be under threat. We have given financial certainty to the network over the next few years, which is something that it did not always enjoy in the past.

Peter Luff: In its report of 8 February, the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee expressed concerns about certain aspects of the consultation process, many of which could be addressed quite quickly. Despite the significant funding that the Government are putting into the network, we are concerned that there is apparently no policy in place to prevent the further shrinkage of the network from 11,500 to the 7,500 figure that meets the access criteria. Does the Minister therefore understand my disappointment that despite the early indications that the Department would expedite its response to the report, it so far looks unlikely even to meet the informal deadline, which is normally two months?

Patrick McFadden: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the serious work that the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Select Committee has done on this issue. It has now issued three reports, and we will respond very soon to the report that he mentioned. I note the Committee's specific proposal to make it clearer that the basis of the consultation was the implementation of the programme rather than it simply being a referendum on whether there should be closures. As we now know, both parties accept the need for closures. The Conservative Front-Bench spokesperson made that clear in the debate on the subject a couple of weeks ago. The hon. Gentleman's Committee made a very good point on that subject, and I hope that Post Office Ltd will take it up.

Mark Harper: Eight post offices in my constituency are threatened with closure. Two in particular—at Primrose Hill in Lydney and at Ruspidge—have a strong case for remaining open. Will the Minister confirm what the Prime Minister is reported—in one of our excellent local newspapers,  The Citizen—to have said, namely that, if people had a strong case against the planned closure of their local post office, they could appeal and take the matter right to the top and to the chairman of Royal Mail, Allan Leighton, if necessary? If those two post offices are told in early May that they must close, will the Minister confirm that Allan Leighton will meet me, and any other Member of Parliament who wishes to meet him, to discuss in person the case for keeping those post offices open, as the Prime Minister promised?

Patrick McFadden: The Prime Minister was absolutely right to say that a review process is built into this procedure. As I have said before, it is triggered by Postwatch and begins at local level. He was also right to say that the process can ultimately go right up to Allan Leighton, the chairman of the Royal Mail Group, if need be. The question of Mr. Leighton's diary commitments will have to be answered by him, rather than by me, however.

John Baron: The Minister will be aware that Essex county council has committed £1.5 million to keep certain post offices open, including two profitable branches at Billericay and Wickford in my constituency. Despite assurances from the Minister—which I do not doubt—that he would get in touch with Post Office Ltd, and despite the Secretary of State's letter of 19 March, Post Office Ltd is still dragging its feet in its negotiations with Essex county council by not releasing essential financial information. Will the Minister now personally ensure that Post Office Ltd does not drag its feet further, and that it engages in full and frank conversation with Essex county council? Will he also ensure that Post Office Ltd does not decommission branches that are set for closure until those negotiations are complete?

Patrick McFadden: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have encouraged Post Office Ltd to talk to Essex county council. I have spoken to the chief executive personally about this on two occasions, and I hope that those discussions will take place.
	On the hon. Gentleman's point about the decommissioning of equipment, he will understand that post offices are normally private businesses owned by their sub-postmasters. The Post Office has said that it will extend the period of notice, at no cost to the sub-postmaster, when there is a local authority expression of interest. On some occasions, however, the sub-postmaster might want the equipment removed so that the rest of the retail premises can be made use of. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but we need to take into account the fact that these businesses are privately owned in most cases.

Charles Hendry: I am sure the Minister is aware that many other councils share Essex county council's frustration at the slow progress of their attempts to save some of their local post offices from closure. First, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), they are finding it very difficult to obtain the realistic costings that they need to decide whether to proceed. Secondly, there is a complete lack of clarity from the Department on whether such support would fall foul of European Union state aid rules. Thirdly, in some cases, equipment is removed from post offices while the discussions are still taking place. That is not happening only in post offices that the postmasters wish to close. Will the Minister get a grip on the situation, and ensure that councils receive immediately from his Department any information that they need to proceed? Will he also ensure that no post offices are closed if they have a realistic prospect of being saved?

Patrick McFadden: It is for Post Office Ltd and individual councils to negotiate the details of the process. As I told the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained in his letter of 19 March the basis on which the discussions should take place to both the Post Office and the Local Government Association. That letter refers to the state aid rules. That is the Government's position, as set out by my right hon. Friend.

Street Trading

Brian Iddon: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the regulatory framework for street trading.

Malcolm Wicks: No recent assessment has been undertaken of the regulatory framework on street trading. However, the Government are aware that my hon. Friend has tabled a Bill that seeks to extend local authority powers. Our Department is in the process of undertaking research to establish more firmly the evidence about the effectiveness of the current legislation. That will help us to make decisions about how to proceed in a way that balances the interests of business, consumers and, indeed, pedlars.

Brian Iddon: There have been seven local authority-promoted private Acts of Parliament to control the street trading activities of pedlars. As we have heard this morning, six almost identical Bills are before the House at present, with the possibility of up to 50 more in the queue. Will my hon. Friend consider allowing my Bill to proceed on the grounds that clause 2 would allow councils wishing to adopt it to do so? That would overcome any human rights-based objections that might apply to a blanket Bill.

Malcolm Wicks: I know that my colleague Baroness Vadera is prepared to discuss the matter further with my hon. Friend. He has persevered on this important matter. We are aware of a number of local authorities with an interest in it, which is why we wish to establish the evidence base. We need to understand the issue more clearly.

Mobile Ringtones

Jo Swinson: What recent discussions he has had with mobile telephone network operators on regulation of the trade in mobile ringtones.

Malcolm Wicks: There has been no recent discussion with the five mobile network operators on the regulation of the trade in mobile ringtones. A code of practice was introduced in the autumn of 2005 by the Mobile Entertainment Forum, which required information providers and aggregators who trade mobile ringtones to be more explicit about cost, terms and conditions. In particular, mobile network operators have made it easier for customers to cancel subscriptions: they simply need to send a message consisting of the word "STOP". I understand that that has resulted in a reported 62 per cent. fall in the number of complaints.

Jo Swinson: T-Mobile is the only mobile network operator in the United Kingdom that bans third parties from having direct access to customers' phone credit for goods and services. A 13-year-old constituent of mine found that out the hard way when she was repeatedly conned out of money for ringtones that never arrived by a company that was trading illegally. Will the Minister look into how the regulator ICSTIS, the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services, could act more effectively to stop this unscrupulous practice?

Malcolm Wicks: I agree that many people have had to pay very large sums as a result of being misinformed or misled. The regulator formerly known as ICSTIS—now, I understand, known as PhonepayPlus—is examining the position carefully. It has a close relationship with the major regulator, Ofcom, and I will ensure that the hon. Lady's concerns are brought to the regulator's attention.

Balance of Trade

Andrew Selous: What assessment he has made of recent trends in the UK's balance of trade; and if he will make a statement.

John Hutton: The deficit in trade in goods and services remained at 3.6 per cent. of GDP in 2007, unchanged from the previous two years.

Andrew Selous: The Government have estimated that, for the whole of 2007, our total deficit in trade was £51 billion. What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the effect of a possible flight of non-doms, perhaps taking their businesses with them, on the trade figures for this year and next year?

John Hutton: The issue of non-doms and their tax status has been addressed and resolved by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is right that people who are non-domiciled for tax purposes should make a fair and reasonable contribution; we all accept that, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not, as those on the Opposition Front-Bench first proposed it. I have just two points to make about the trade deficit: it was much higher at some point in the 1980s than it is now, and, more importantly, UK competitiveness depends more on productivity, so I am glad to be able to say that on that we are narrowing the gap between the UK and our principal economic competitors.

Tony Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that a worrying long-term trend in terms of our balance of payments is the decline in manufacturing? The balance of payments in manufacturing has deteriorated: the deficit for last year was about £60 billion, which is enormous and, arguably, unsustainable. Given the current pressure in financial services and other sectors, is it not time for manufacturing to be given a strong lead, so that our manufacturers can make inroads into the manufacturing balance of payments deficit?

John Hutton: I strongly agree that we must always look to do what we can to support Britain's manufacturing industries. It is worth reminding ourselves of something, however: there is a lot of talk about Britain being a post-industrial economy, but that is rubbish. It is not a post-industrial economy at all; Britain is the sixth largest manufacturing economy in the world, and we work very closely with manufacturing companies in the UK to ensure that our performance continues to improve. It is worth reminding ourselves of another important fact: export-led growth has been very strong in the past few years. The total value of the exported trade in goods rose by almost 8 per cent. this year, so we should not pay too much credence to the ne'er-do-wells and gloom-and-doom merchants on the Opposition Benches who predict the decline of Britain's manufacturing industry.

Topical Questions

David Heathcoat-Amory: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

John Hutton: My Department promotes business growth and a strong enterprise economy, leads the better regulation agenda and champions the case for free and fair markets.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Is it a departmental responsibility to keep the Government's promises? Does the Secretary of State recognise the following promise made in the rural White Paper:
	"we will...retain and renew the rural Post Office network and make banking, internet, pensions, benefits, prescriptions, health and other services available from rural post offices"?
	That was a promise to renew and retain, not to cut, and also to make new services available through rural post offices. When will the Government keep the promise that they made?

John Hutton: Obviously, we are always looking at ways to support the rural post office network with new business opportunities, and I know that Alan Cook, the chief executive, is fully committed to doing that. I should also make another point, of which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware. The Government are heavily subsidising the rural post office network. My hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs has made clear in questions today the extent of that support and what would happen if it were not available. Post offices in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, and in many other rural constituencies, would find it impossible to operate if it were not for that subsidy. So the size of the network is being sustained, and it is being significantly built on compared with what it would be if we were just relying on an ability to run a commercial service. That is the right and proper thing for us to do, because we recognise the important role that post offices play in every constituency in Britain, including our rural areas.

Katy Clark: The Secretary of State will be aware that foreign workers are still working on ferries out of British ports for wages of only £1.50 to £2 per hour. Is he considering making changes to the national minimum wage legislation to deal with that loophole?

John Hutton: I would like my hon. Friend to give me the specific details of that case, because the national minimum wage regulations apply to temporary and agency workers. If she has evidence of those regulations not applying, I would very much like to see it.

Mr. Speaker: I call Alan Clark—sorry, I mean Alan Duncan.

Alan Duncan: Do not worry, Mr. Speaker, I assure you that I am sober. What is the Secretary of State's assessment of the number of company directors and entrepreneurs who are choosing to bail out of their shareholdings before the Government's entirely destructive changes to capital gains tax start on 6 April, and of the consequences of those people's actions?

John Hutton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has nothing in common with Alan Clark—that is obvious.
	With the entrepreneurs' relief that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has introduced there has been a significant improvement on the previous retirement provisions of capital gains tax. The system is now tailored much more specifically to the needs of serial entrepreneurs, who now have a significant allowance that they can roll over into new businesses without paying any CGT. I hope that that is a way of addressing the real and legitimate concerns that the small business community, in particular, raised in the light of the pre-Budget report. We now have a highly competitive CGT regime that will boost entrepreneurship and enterprise, and will benefit the economy as a result.

Alan Duncan: On the issue of company directors, we are told that more than 1,500 directors who are disqualified from running a company in the UK are still doing so. The Secretary of State is responsible for overseeing this area. Why is he failing to enforce this properly? What does he intend to do about it?

John Hutton: It is obviously important that the rules on company directors are properly enforced by Companies House. I have regular discussions with that body and this is an issue of ongoing concern. The law must be properly applied. I am not aware of the details of every one of the cases that the hon. Gentleman raised, but if he would like to discuss the details, I would be happy to do so.

Phyllis Starkey: Bletchley Park innovation centre in my constituency has, in three years, created 77 jobs and attracted 25 high-tech industries, one of which, Ceravision, has secured a manufacturing deal on a highly energy-efficient microwave-based lighting system. What is the Department doing to support innovation centres, such as that one, further in creating jobs and wealth for this country?

Malcolm Wicks: We work very closely with the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills on this issue. Together, or just through that Department, we would like to discuss these matters with my hon. Friend. We start from a good base, because we have some of the best science in the world—I believe that we are second only to the United States on the widely referred to "refereed science papers"—our research councils are well funded and we are making great progress on innovation through establishments such as the Technology Strategy Board. I applaud the work being done in her constituency, and am happy to discuss it with her further.

John Pugh: Given the obvious concern expressed today about the abortive nature of post office closure consultations and the deep public cynicism about them, would the Minister object to the National Audit Office conducting a review of the process and its outcome?

Patrick McFadden: Obviously that is a matter for the NAO to decide. The process is, of course, difficult, but it is necessary for the reasons that we have set out—the network faces losses of £500,000 a day and has lost the custom of some 4 million people a week in recent years. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary and State and I have said, the Post Office would be facing a much greater challenge in responding to that situation were it not for the extensive Government support and public subsidy that goes into the network.

Sarah Teather: The Secretary of State will be aware that the OECD anti-corruption team is in town this week. Will he give an undertaking that his Government will co-operate fully with the United Systems Department of Justice investigation into allegations of corruption involving BAE Systems and Saudi Arabia?

John Hutton: Of course, the UK law enforcement authorities always fully comply with requests for information or details about specific cases. That is obviously a matter for the law offices of the Crown.

Jim Devine: Farepak collapsed in October 2006. We were promised a report by Christmas, and then by Easter. Both have now passed. I understand that if there is not a criminal prosecution, the report will not be made public. I have to tell my right hon. Friend that that is unacceptable to Members on both sides of the House. Like many others, I believe that the report should be in the public domain.

Patrick McFadden: I think that both sides of the House understand the deep concerns that hon. Members have about Farepak customers and the experience that they went through. The investigation is highly complex because of the number of people involved. I understand what my hon. Friend has said about the delay, but I have to tell him that, in the event of non-prosecution, the position on publication is firmly set down in law and is not simply a matter for ministerial decision.

Tom Brake: I handed in a 2,000 signature post office petition to the Department on Monday and I hope that the Minister has received it and will reply to those 2,000 constituents. Will the Minister call on the Post Office to review its plans to close four post offices in Carshalton and Wallington and, in particular, the Seymour Road post office where there are plans to develop housing in the next couple of years?

Patrick McFadden: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is not for me as a Minister to decide which post office stays open and which closes. If he feels that there is a case for review, that process is triggered by Postwatch, which is the consumer body, not by Ministers.

John Baron: Essex is one of the most enterprising counties in the country, with small companies across Basildon district contributing much to the local community. However, at a recent business breakfast it emerged that three quarters of all eligible businesses were failing to claim £6 million in small business rate relief owing to bureaucratic complexity. Will the Secretary of State make it easier for small businesses to claim that relief, particularly by making it last for the lifetime of the valuation list and by granting it to all those who are eligible in the way that the Federation of Small Businesses wants?

John Hutton: We will certainly look at what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, those are primarily matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Barry Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend have a look at the Kirklees Enterprise Foundation, which is based in Huddersfield and has succeeded in its first year of operation in starting 54 new enterprises? Will he have a look at that success, come and visit the centre and see whether we can roll it out to other parts of the country?

John Hutton: I pay tribute to all the excellent work that is done in my hon. Friend's constituency. Encouraging more people to start and grow businesses is fundamental as we prepare the ground for Britain's future economic success. If there is an opportunity open to me in the next few weeks and months to visit his constituency and see at first hand the excellent work that is being done there, I will welcome that.

Graham Stuart: Having ordered the closure of 2,500 post offices, the Government emasculated Postwatch to stop it being an effective voice for the consumer. Not content with that, they now plan to abolish Postwatch. Will the Minister assure us today that the consumer voice will be restored when new arrangements are put in place?

Patrick McFadden: I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Postwatch; I do not believe that that is the case. Postwatch is the consumer body and has an important role to play, as I have said, in the review process. In terms of the future, I believe that all hon. Members would pay tribute to the National Consumer Council, of which Postwatch will become a part, rather than saying that that body did not pay an important role in speaking strongly and forthrightly on behalf of consumers.

Jo Swinson: Many Members welcomed last month's announcement that the minimum wage rates will rise again in October, but over 21-year-olds earn £2 more an hour than 16 or 17-year-olds. That means that to earn the same amount of money as would be earned for a typical eight-hour shift, a younger employee must work for 13 hours. That is clearly unfair. When are the Government going to end that unfair age discrimination?

John Hutton: We always look very carefully at the impact of this regulation to ensure that it is proportionate and reasonable. The Low Pay Commission has looked at the matter from time to time, and I am sure that it will continue to focus its thoughts and opinions on it. Ministers will obviously act on its recommendations in due course.

Norman Baker: In my constituency, there are proposals for significant and swingeing cuts to the post office network such that Lewes district council, my local authority, has been trying to engage with the Post Office to make financial arrangements to keep the post offices open. The Post Office has been obstructive of that process and will not provide figures to the district council. Will the Minister agree to meet me and a small delegation from Lewes district council to examine how to engage with the Post Office constructively?

Anne Moffat: He's a horror—tell him to bog off!

Patrick McFadden: I am not sure that I should take the advice that my hon. Friend gives from a sedentary position. I am happy to tell the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) that I am very willing, as I have been throughout this process, to hold a meeting with him about post office closures.

Robert Goodwill: At a recent meeting with businessmen in Scarborough, I asked them for examples of regulations that could be either simplified or scrapped. They pointed out that, whereas an HGV driver who takes his test at 21 can drive for his entire career, drivers of forklift trucks and excavators must take tests repeatedly. In fact, if one wants to drive a small, medium and large excavator, one has to take three separate tests. Will a Minister volunteer to examine the matter and see whether it could be simplified in some way?

John Hutton: We are always happy to look at sensible ideas of how we can lift the burden of regulation. I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's points to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Eric Illsley: Will my right hon. Friend look to use his powers to impose minimum pricing on the alcohol that is sold cheaply in our retail outlets? Will he also consider rating retail outlets that sell alcohol, on the part of the premises that is used for that purpose, in the same way as pubs are rated—on turnover rather than on a business rates system?

Patrick McFadden: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is of course possible to take action on alcohol pricing through the competition regime. That is not something to be done lightly, although I appreciate the seriousness of his point. It is something that is open to us if we decide to do it, but it is certainly not a decision that has been made at this point.

Henry Bellingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: After the business statement.

Business of the House

Theresa May: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

Harriet Harman: The business for the week commencing 21 April will be:
	Monday 21 April—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
	Tuesday 22 April—Remaining stages of the Pensions Bill.
	Wednesday 23 April—Opposition Day [10th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 24 April—Topical debate: subject to be announced, followed by a general debate on a points-based immigration system.
	Friday 25 April—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 28 April will include:
	Monday 28 April—Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
	Tuesday 29 April—Conclusion of Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
	Wednesday 30 April—Remaining stages of the Energy Bill.
	Thursday 1 May—Topical debate: subject to be announced, followed by a general debate. Subject to be announced.
	Friday 2 May—The House will not be sitting.

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for giving us the forthcoming business. May I congratulate her on her performance yesterday at Prime Minister's questions?
	The number of people affected by eating disorders in the UK is 1.1 million. On Tuesday, Professor Janet Treasure said that the fashion industry's obsession with thinness has
	"a dangerous influence on the public."
	Yesterday, the Periodical Publishers Association announced that its editors were reconsidering the practice of airbrushing pictures of models in their magazines. The private sector is developing a clear strategy for dealing with eating disorders, but when will the Government do the same? Will the right hon. and learned Lady make a statement outlining Government policy on eating disorders, body image and the media?
	Today, a report on the Counter-Terrorism Bill was published by the Committee of Selection. Although more than 50 Labour MPs oppose the Government's plans for pre-charge detention, not one of them has been put forward by the Labour Whips to serve on the Public Bill Committee. Does not that manipulative repression of legitimate dissent totally undermine the Prime Minister's statement about restoring power to Parliament? Membership of the Public Bill Committee should reflect the balance of views in the House, so will the Leader of the House take up the matter with the Government Chief Whip?
	Yesterday, in conflict with the opinion of many Labour Members, the Leader of the House denied that the abolition of the 10p income tax rate would have any effect on poor families. With household bills, mortgage repayments and everyday prices rising—even the  Daily Mirror today published a table showing how the poorest will be worse off, under the headline "Fury at 10p Tax Axe"—her denial seems staggering. However, it may be no wonder that we should learn today that although the Government usually publish the annual child poverty figures in March, this year they will bury the bad news by delaying publication until after the local elections. So can we have a statement from the Work and Pensions Secretary to explain that decision?
	This morning the Housing Minister issued a written statement on eco-towns, two thirds of which are planned to be in Conservative seats. On 1 February, as is recorded at column 635 of  Hansard, the Minister agreed with the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) that acceptance of an eco-town was "an important consideration" for local communities. Many eco-towns are the subject of fierce local opposition, and there are real concerns about the planning process that will apply to them. Will the Leader of the House do her job and give hon. Members the opportunity to represent their constituents by allowing a debate on eco-towns in Government time?
	This week, the Defence Secretary made a statement announcing that the withdrawal of troops from Iraq would be delayed. Last October, with blatant disregard for Parliament, the Prime Minister announced planned troop withdrawals to the media in the middle of the Conservative party conference in order to grab a headline. May we have a debate on the Government's misuse of the media?
	Finally, may we have a debate about the teaching of English literature? We learned this week that politicians around the world had been asked to name their favourite poem for a new book. Tony Blair chose Rupert Brooke's "The Soldier", but what poem did the current Prime Minister choose? He chose part of a PhD thesis
	"about the individual's limited powers of self-sufficiency".
	The author said that it had been intended as
	"a critique of John Locke's ideas about the self-sufficient individual in the state of nature".
	That tells us rather a lot about the Prime Minister—but why did he not choose a poem by Rabbie Burns? Given the recent goings on in No. 10, there are a few that would seem appropriate. Perhaps he could choose "Despondency: An Ode" or "Ah, Woe is Me, My Mother Dear"—although most of us would probably settle for "The Farewell".
	With that, may I wish all Members of the House, and its staff, a very enjoyable recess?

Harriet Harman: I thank the right hon. Lady for her congratulations to me on yesterday—and I think that she would have done a much better job for the Opposition than her right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).
	The right hon. Lady mentioned eating disorders, an important public health issue that particularly affects girls and young women. It is of concern to the Department of Health, which works with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that the media play their part in helping to prevent young women from falling prey to eating disorders. I shall ask the relevant Ministers to write to the right hon. Lady with an update on the latest action being taken.
	The right hon. Lady asked about the Counter-Terrorism Bill, but she will know that the membership of the Public Bill Committee is a matter for the Committee of Selection. I note, however, that the Opposition did not put forward the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) for membership of the Committee.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned tax rates. I remind the House that we have always been concerned about low-income families, pensioners and child poverty. We have done a great deal to lift pensioners out of poverty, but we have also been concerned about the standard of living of single people. That is why we have been determined to ensure that everyone can have a job, that there is a national minimum wage and that we keep inflation as low as possible.
	The right hon. Lady asked about eco-towns. She will know that a written ministerial statement has been laid before the House today. She will also know that there is a four-stage consultation. The first stage has been announced by way of that written ministerial statement: a three-month consultation to allow preliminary views to be expressed on the shortlisted locations, which are published today. Stage 2 will then involve a sustainability appraisal. Stage 3 will involve the planning policy statement, which will be discussed and debated in the House. Stage 4 will involve the submission of planning applications. So there will be full consultation and discussion all the way through.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned troop numbers in Iraq. She will remember that about 45,000 British troops were engaged in the original invasion of Iraq. About a year ago, about 7,000 British troops were engaged. That number then came down to 4,500, and it is now down to 4,000. As the Secretary of State for Defence said in his statement earlier this week, he will continue to keep the House informed.
	To conclude, I notice that one hon. Member is not in his place who is normally in his place absolutely without fail during business questions—the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow)—but he has a very good excuse for not being here. I should like us all to welcome Jemima Bercow, who has arrived in the world this week. I hope that the hon. Gentleman enjoys his paternity leave.

Linda Gilroy: Can my right hon. and learned Friend point me in the direction of any early opportunity there might be to debate bilateral relations with The Gambia—a small but important country in west Africa, which has a good tourism trade with this country? That would give me the opportunity to raise the case of my constituent's brother, Charlie Northfield, who is awaiting trial in The Gambia on a case of economic theft, and to reassure his family, who live in Plymouth, that all the usual diplomatic tools are being used to support him.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend has already raised that case with the Foreign Office, and she will know that Mr. Northfield is receiving full consular support. I understand that he is out on bail, and I know that she will keep in touch with the Foreign Office to ensure that it does all that it can to support him.

Crispin Blunt: First, I hope that the right hon. and learned Lady will apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) for suggesting that he is not here doing his duties. I served with him on a Programming Sub-Committee at 9 o'clock this morning. He is in the House, so he is certainly discharging his duties to this place.
	Shortly after I attended that meeting, I was alerted by Mr. Muttiah, a sub-postmaster in my constituency, that he had received in a letter—dated, unhappily, 1 April—news that his post office is now proposed for closure, in addition to those that have already been proposed for closure. May we please have a debate on this next round of the post office closure programme?

Harriet Harman: We have recently had a full debate on post offices, and we have just finished topical questions to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, which has responsibility for post offices, so there has been a great deal of opportunity to debate the issue in the House. The important thing now is for Members to make representations as part of the consultation.

Simon Hughes: May I join the congratulations to the right hon. and learned Lady on her historic first as a woman Labour MP answering Prime Minister's questions yesterday, and on a good south London robust performance, which was very welcome.
	The right hon. and learned Lady has announced two pieces of legislation for remaining stages debates in the first fortnight back after the April break. May I ask her to reflect on the fact that on Monday, when we debated the remaining stages of the Housing and Regeneration Bill, all that we feared came to pass? We completed consideration of only one of six groups of amendments. There was full debate on only three of 20 Government new clauses, only 29 of 109 Government amendments, only five of 18 Opposition new clauses, and only four of 98 Opposition amendments. Clearly, it was a completely ridiculous failure to scrutinise large parts of the Bill. The Leader of the House has helpfully said that she will look into finding a process that means that Government amendments get extra time that does not detract from Opposition scrutiny time. Please may we have a change to the system before we consider the remaining stages of further major Bills, so that they do not suffer the same fate?
	The Leader of the House announced that the debate on the Energy Bill—one of the Bills whose remaining stages have yet to be completed—is to be on 30 April. I think that everybody is aware that that is the day before local elections in England and Wales, and many colleagues will probably be elsewhere. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] Because they may be seeking to advance democracy in their own patch; that is why. Will she reflect on whether the debate might be held on a better date than the day before the known annual local election day, so that we can ensure better attendance when we discuss that important Bill?
	Please may we have the debate that many of us have asked for, in different ways, on the OECD's investigation of Britain's failure over 10 years to introduce an anti-bribery and anti-corruption policy? The Government have confirmed in a White Paper that they want Law Officers to keep the power to intervene to discontinue proceedings in corruption and national security cases, following the BAE Systems Saudi Arabia case. Will the Leader of the House put it to her colleagues that that is completely unhelpful to the reputation of Britain? May we have that debate, so that we can introduce a decent anti-corruption policy and not be under investigation by an official body working on behalf of the international community?
	Lastly, may we have a debate on yesterday's report from the newly independent Office for National Statistics? It shows that after 10 years and more of a Labour Government the poverty gap has not closed, and that three groups in the community continue to have specific disadvantages: disabled people, people from minority ethnic communities and people in disadvantaged areas. The right hon. and learned Lady has a traditional view in favour of social equality but, sadly, in many areas, her Government have not delivered that equality. May we have an honest debate on why that is, and on whether they will do better in their remaining days in office?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman has continued to raise concern about the Government's handling of the Housing and Regeneration Bill—a matter that was brought up last week in business questions. There are two issues: the first is the volume of amendments and the second concerns timing and the question of when the amendments were laid before the House. I think that we all recognise that if points are raised in Committee, and the Government agree to respond to those points, amendments have to be tabled, and I think the majority of the amendments tabled for the remaining stages were the result of issues raised in Committee.
	As far as the timing is concerned, my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House and I looked into the issue. The overwhelming majority of the amendments were tabled on the Tuesday before the debate, which was held on the following Monday. Obviously it would have been better if they had been tabled earlier, but as they were tabled on Tuesday, the House not having sat on the Monday, hon. Members had nearly a full week to consider them, and I do not think that that is an egregious lack of time. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), wrote to Committee members before the amendments were tabled to let them know about them. Of course, the amendments were a matter for the whole House, but my hon. Friend had the courtesy to write to Committee members, who he knew were particularly concerned with the Bill.
	The question of the time given to a Bill's remaining stages is particularly difficult. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) has complained about the backlog of Bills awaiting Second Reading; that is part of the problem resulting from the amount of time taken to discuss the Lisbon treaty. There are therefore time constraints on Second Readings and remaining stages. Obviously, it is always desirable to have more time to consider amendments on Report than we get. Because of the concerns about the tabling of amendments to the Housing and Regeneration Bill, my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will ensure that amendments are tabled promptly for subsequent Bills, starting with all the amendments being tabled today to the Local Transport Bill, which will go into Committee when the House comes back from the recess.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Energy Bill. When the House is sitting, House business must be scheduled. All House business is important and the House does not rise for the day before local elections. It is therefore right that we should continue with the business, including the Energy Bill.
	On the role of the Law Officers in prosecutions, the hon. Gentleman knows that that matter comes within the scope of the Constitutional Renewal Bill, which has just been published in draft. There will be plenty of scope for consideration of that draft Bill before it comes to the House for its Second Reading.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned inequality and the gap between rich and poor, with particular reference to disabled people and black and Asian people. We are planning to introduce an equality Bill, one of the objectives of which is to narrow the gap between disabled people, and black and Asian people, and the rest of society.

Andrew MacKinlay: Does my right hon. and learned Friend see in her programme a legislative opportunity for us to improve consumer protection, particularly in relation to the big retailers, which are increasingly using warehouses and distribution methods that fail the consumer? All too often we hear from constituents who cancelled meetings and other activities and waited in, only to receive half-delivered goods—goods that are not complete. Although in theory there is a remedy, it is insufficient. People cannot get hold of the retailers and are held on answerphones, for which they pay. There needs to be naming and shaming of the bad big high street retailers that do not deliver on the goods that people have looked for, ordered and paid for. We want some swift remedy for our constituents. May we look into this matter, please?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend raises an increasingly important issue, especially because more people are ordering goods on the internet. It is a matter of concern that will only grow. I will bring his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

Sammy Wilson: Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs have announced job cuts in Northern Ireland that amount to a 25 per cent. reduction in the work force—twice as great as the reduction that will occur in the rest of the United Kingdom. That will have an impact on women, on provincial towns and, most importantly, the ability to take on fuel laundering and construction fraud in Northern Ireland. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in the House so that we can discuss how HMRC will live up to the promise made by the Secretary of State that there will no let-up on fuel-laundering fraud in Northern Ireland?

Harriet Harman: I will bring the points that the hon. Gentleman makes to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I know that employment is an extremely important issue in Northern Ireland. There has been a great increase in jobs and a fall in unemployment. None the less, the hon. Gentleman's points about fraud and employment levels are important, and I will make sure that my right hon. Friend writes to him.

Anne Moffat: I could never be accused of being a sook or a sycophant, or of ever asking a planted question, but on this occasion I want to put on record the sterling performance that my right hon. and learned Friend gave yesterday at the Dispatch Box. Does she share my concern that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has refused to reclassify cannabis? As a former psychiatric nurse I have seen the ravages that that drug can cause. It should be reclassified, and people should be made aware of its harmful effects on mental health and family stability.

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments about yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred the reclassification of cannabis to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and we have yet to receive its advice. Irrespective of classification, we are all clear that cannabis remains illegal, that there is new evidence of the dangers that it poses because a much stronger version of cannabis is being used, and that there is new evidence of the risk of psychosis caused by cannabis, which the Maudsley hospital in my constituency has been keen to point out. We await the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

James Clappison: The Leader of the House has announced that there will be a debate on the points-based immigration system. She will be aware that earlier this week the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee produced a report which, in effect, demolished the economic rationale of the Government's policy. Will she request the Home Secretary or the Minister who replies to that debate to come equipped with an answer, or attempted answer, to the detailed and lengthy inquiry conducted by the House of Lords, rather than the arrogant out-of-hand dismissal that we saw from the Prime Minister this week?

Harriet Harman: The House of Lords Committee makes a number of recommendations, most of which are accepted by the Government and are already being acted on. We can all recognise and pay tribute to the work of hard-working migrants who come to the United Kingdom and work in our businesses and public services. We want to make sure that we restrict unskilled migrants coming to this country. That is what the points-based system, which to be debated in the House in the coming weeks, is designed to do. The Conservative policy does not have a shred of credibility. The Opposition say they want a cap on migration, but they will not say what the level of the cap would be. They say they want to help businesses, but they would deny them the skilled workers who are needed. They say they want to help the economy, but they reject the proposals that we are bringing forward to help British people obtain the skills that businesses and services in this country need.

Barry Sheerman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider an urgent debate, when the House returns, on greed in the financial services sector? Many of my constituents want to know why unscrupulous people were put on bonuses of 60 to 100 times their annual income to sell products to people who patently could not afford to buy them. All that, across the world and especially in Britain, has undermined the banking and financial services sector. May we have a debate on that so that we can clear the air and find out who was guilty of such malpractice?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend raises an important point, which touches on a number of issues. It is totally unacceptable for employees to get big bonuses unconnected to their performance in the company, or even in spite of disastrous performance in the company. People think that is very unfair. That is why the Government have introduced measures to ensure that there is transparency and shareholders can see what remuneration committees are deciding about the awarding of bonuses. It is also why new proposals will be introduced so that companies will have to report on the relationship between the bonuses being offered to those at the very top of the company and the remuneration of all the other workers in the company.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: May we have another debate in Government time on tuberculosis? The rise in TB in my constituency in the time for which I have been MP, which is only since 2001, has been relentless. It has crossed Exmoor and is in the Somerset levels. Last week it got into areas that have not seen TB for more than 60 years, and it is costing the country billions every year. It has still not been decided what we are going to do about the situation. May we therefore have a formal debate on the matter?

Harriet Harman: I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to bovine TB. That is a matter of concern to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I know that the hon. Gentleman has raised it on a number of occasions. He knows that the Department is keen to support farming and the dairy industry. How the disease is dealt with is a scientific question, but I will make sure that his concern about what is happening in his constituency is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Ian Cawsey: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for a debate on the democratic accountability of local authorities? Yesterday, East Riding of Yorkshire council, which has a large Tory majority, voted to support proposals to cut fire services in Goole in my constituency. Goole is a Tory-free zone, with no Tory representatives at town and district council or parliamentary level, but, despite strong local views, the views of local representatives and of me—and, in fairness, of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis)—it is proposed that those cuts go ahead. Can we ensure that local authorities accurately reflect the views of the communities that they are supposed to serve?

Harriet Harman: There is no excuse for East Riding council to cut fire services. My hon. Friend knows that there has been a big increase in local authority funding—a 45 per cent. real-terms increase in the last 10 years—and I am sure that he will raise the matter with the relevant Secretary of State.

Lee Scott: Will the Leader of the House give time for a debate on the number of illegal, unroadworthy cars being allowed into our country, ostensibly from eastern Europe? What checks are being done at our borders to prevent such cars from going on to our roads? Such cars are causing many accidents and many fatalities. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would like a debate on the subject.

Harriet Harman: I recommend that the hon. Gentleman raise the matter with the Department for Transport during Question Time, which takes place on the Tuesday after the recess.

Ann Cryer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give time for an early debate on the subject matter of early-day motion 1205, which relates to the prevention of forced marriages?
	 [ That this House wishes to put on record its appreciation of the work of Philip Balmforth in protecting thousands of vulnerable girls in the Bradford district; further wishes to commend West Yorkshire Police and Bradford social services for having the foresight to engage Philip 12 years ago, thus enabling him to give so many young women the right to choose whom and when to marry; and believes that these young women have good reason to thank Mr Balmforth and hope that he will have many more years serving their community in his own unassuming and courteous way. ]
	The early-day motion, which was tabled on 18 March, has attracted 65 signatures from Members of all parties. Philip Balmforth faces a disciplinary hearing next week, brought about by complaints made to West Yorkshire police by Bradford council for obscure reasons that I do not understand.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend has done more than anybody in the House to bring to the attention of the general public the outrageous problem of forced marriages. The Government have acted on many of her suggestions, and I will raise with the Home Secretary the points that my hon. Friend has raised today. Home Office Question Time takes place on the Monday after the recess. I suggest that she try to catch the eye of Mr. Speaker and raise the matter with the Home Secretary at that point.

Nicholas Winterton: Will the Leader of the House show support for the House by recognising that programme motions on consideration of the remaining stages of major Bills are preventing the House from doing the job that it is here to do—that is, scrutinise legislation? The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) highlighted the number of amendments—Opposition and Government—that were not debated but should have been. Will she find time for a debate on that subject?
	Quickly, on another matter, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on Zimbabwe when the situation in that country has been clarified following the elections? That would enable those of us who are interested to indicate what we believe this country should do to help the people of Zimbabwe, who have suffered so much under Mr. Mugabe.

Harriet Harman: The House always has an opportunity to debate a programme motion, so in respect of each Bill the motion and how the clauses are to be dealt with are discussed.
	Once again, the hon. Gentleman raises the question of Zimbabwe, which he has raised in the House over weeks, months and, indeed, years. I know that it is of major concern to him, as it is to all hon. Members. He will know that a statement on Zimbabwe was made yesterday. The situation will be kept under careful review.
	We all feel that if there is to be a second stage election, there must be proper election monitoring. We need a proper free press to report the second stage of elections, which was denied in the first round. A telling sign will be the BBC being able to report from that country once again, instead of having to report from neighbouring countries or under cover from within Zimbabwe.

Jim Sheridan: Can we have a debate on health and safety in the workplace? My right hon. and learned Friend may be aware of a recent debate on Iraq in which Members on both sides of the House raised the question of the untimely deaths of 170 of our service personnel. Over the same period, double that number of workers in the construction industry have lost their lives. Therefore, will she assure the House that every British worker's life is important? Can we have an inquiry or a debate on why so many people are losing their lives in the construction industry?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point; he has raised the question of health and safety for people at work on numerous occasions. He knows that, as a result of his work and that of other hon. Members, there is particular work going on between the Department for Work and Pensions and the construction industry to ensure that we cut the appalling toll of death and injury at work.

John Hemming: Through my office, Senator Stuart Syvret of the States of Jersey has raised with the new Lord Chancellor the question of the rule of law in Jersey. Can we have a debate on the rule of law? We need to look at three issues in particular—Crown dependencies; the use of section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, which can prevent cases from going to the House of Lords; and access for the parties to recordings of proceedings in secret courts.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman raises a number of important and complex interconnected points. I suggest that he seek a meeting with the Solicitor-General to see how those matters could be taken forward.
	In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan), I should have mentioned that the DWP is meeting not just the construction industry, but, of course, the construction unions.

David Drew: Will my right hon. and learned Friend keep a weather eye on the publication in the autumn of the final Competition Commission report on supermarkets? That is likely to be a major report, and it would be helpful if we got time in the House to debate the implications of the power of supermarkets, with particular regard to out-of-town shopping, land banks and the supply chain. It is only right and proper that we know what that report has to say and that we have our view on how we best represent our constituents.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend raises an important point. This is a question of town centres and the rights of consumers. It is also an important issue for local food suppliers, which I know he is concerned about. Perhaps I will invite him to suggest this as a subject for topical debate when the report is published.

Simon Burns: Can the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to make a statement when we return from the recess on how effectively he believes the Post Office is providing Crown post office services to those areas where the Crown post offices have been closed and moved to the first floor of WH Smith?
	In particular, will the Secretary of State be able to comment on the situation with the Crown post office in Chelmsford, about which many constituents are complaining? The access to it by the bus stops involves going down four steep steps, which is impossible if people are in wheelchairs, are frail or have mobility problems. The walk round to the other entrance is too far. There is only one escalator, which goes up but not down.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman knows that the management of Crown post office services and of the branch office network are operational matters for the Post Office, not for Ministers.

Andrew Dismore: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for a topical debate on affordable and social housing, so that we can urgently consider the impact of policies that advocate that we should abandon the 50 per cent. rule in relation to new developments and that people require an income of £75,000 to qualify for an affordable assisted purchase, as proposed by the Conservative party in the London elections?

Harriet Harman: I recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes. As a champion of his constituents, he knows that the question of lack of affordable housing is very important indeed. One thing that London's Mayor, Ken Livingstone, has done is increase the amount of affordable housing in London. He has pledged to increase it even further—by an extra 50,000 new affordable homes. One choice that people face in the London mayoral election is whether to have more affordable housing, better transport and more policing.

John Hayes: Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), surely the House deserves a particular opportunity to debate the House of Lords' report "The Economic Impact of Immigration", which I remind the Leader of the House said that there was little or no economic benefit to Britain from the present high levels of immigration. I know that it is considered vulgar to debate these issues in the bourgeois liberal circles of the right hon. and learned Lady where it is all fettuccine and feminism, but out there in the real world our constituents know that high levels of immigration put unsustainable pressure on our infrastructure, are the biggest single driver of housing demand and damage social cohesion. Now we also know that the Government's claims are based on worthless assumptions and disingenuous assertions, so we need an urgent debate.

Harriet Harman: There will be an opportunity to debate immigration the week that the House returns on 21 April.

Phyllis Starkey: May we have a debate on the implementation by local authorities of the new Government travel concession for pensioners and disabled people? Despite pensioners in Milton Keynes applying well in advance for their new passes, the Liberal Democrat-controlled Milton Keynes council deliberately delayed sending out the passes and then sent them out by second-class post, and as a result, a great many of my constituents are not able to enjoy the concession that they should have been able to from the beginning of this week. May we have a debate to reveal whether this is an isolated incident of incompetence, or a pattern across the board of Liberal Democrat-controlled councils?

Harriet Harman: Milton Keynes council should get on with it. Councils should not have to be dragged kicking and screaming to ensure that pensioners get their rights to travel. We first introduced this concession in 2000 when we required councils to make half price fares for pensioners and disabled people—that was a struggle, but at least it was brought in. We then required councils to ensure that within their own area all disabled people and people over 60 should have free bus passes, and we now require them to ensure that not only in their own area but in any area pensioners and disabled people can have free travel. This is important. People should be able to get out and about, and public authorities should be seizing this opportunity not dragging their heels.

Roger Williams: In my constituency, 14 post offices are due for closure, of which eight will be offered outreach facilities, most of which will be mobile services, yet the people living in those communities, particularly in Llanwrtyd Wells, would prefer a hosted service in a shop, community centre or pub. When I asked the Post Office about this it said that the model shows that a mobile service would be better for the community. Can the Leader of the House assure me that that model will be made available to Members and placed in the Library of the House so that we can test it during the consultation period?

Harriet Harman: I will ask those Ministers responsible to ask the Post Office to make that information available to hon. Members.

George Young: I support everything that has already been said about the shambles on Monday with the Housing and Regeneration Bill, but what has happened to the Planning Bill, which completed its Public Bill stage on 5 February and has sunk without trace? As the Government assert that that will speed up the planning system, is it not counter-productive for the Government to delay its passage through the House?

Harriet Harman: When it next comes before the House will be announced in the business statement. The right hon. Gentleman will know that following the debates on the Lisbon treaty, a queue of important business is waiting to come back before the House.

Graham Stuart: May we have an urgent debate on the Government's policy of coastal abandonment? The Environment Agency has proposed withdrawing support from many of the coastal defences on Sunk island and the South Holderness coast in my constituency, abandoning 2,000 homes around the Humber, and vast tracts of some of the most productive farmland in the country.

Harriet Harman: This is a matter of great concern to a number of hon. Members that would be suitable for a Westminster Hall debate, so I will raise that with the relevant Ministers.

David Heath: Despite the devolved Administrations, we still have Welsh and Scottish questions, so will the Leader of the House institute west country questions so that with the advent of the summer season and hundreds of thousands of welcome visitors coming down to the west country, we could discuss why we have the most neglected trunk road in Britain in the A303 and the worst rail service in the country in First Great Western?

Harriet Harman: It is precisely for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman mentioned that we are committed to introducing regional accountability, so that on important questions concerning the regional infrastructure, regional Government offices and regional health authorities, where there is a democratic deficit—a lack of accountability—the appropriate authorities can be held to account by the House on the important decisions made in respect of the different regions through the process of regional Committees, which the Modernisation Committee is discussing and whose report will be due shortly. I hope that they will be introduced before the House rises for the summer.

Edward Garnier: My right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House asked the Leader of the House for a debate on eco-towns, following this morning's announcement. Surely it would have been even more appropriate for the Minister for Housing to have come to the House today to make a statement. This morning at 5 minutes to 9, I was invited to take part in a conference telephone call along with a large number of other Members of Parliament whose constituencies are affected by this announcement. That is not a proper way to cross-examine a Minister about an issue that is not only of local and regional importance, but of national importance, if we are to believe the Government's propaganda about the necessity for eco-towns. My constituents are dismayed about today's announcement, and they are even more dismayed, and have every right to be dismayed, that I am unable to cross-examine the Minister in this House today about that matter.

Harriet Harman: As I said earlier, this is a four-stage consultation, and only stage one is the subject of the announcement in today's written ministerial statement. Stage one is the three-month consultation process and there will then be the sustainability appraisal and the final planning policy statement, which will be debated in the House before it goes back to local planning applications. I should have thought that hon. Members would welcome the opportunity to ask questions of and discuss matters with the Minister for Housing.

Anne McIntosh: That is completely unacceptable. I read in the paper this morning the long list that must have reached the press last night. I put through a conference call on eco-towns; I was told that I was one of 16 waiting on the end of the phone, and the Minister did not come to the phone at the prescribed time. That is completely unacceptable.
	This statement is one of 16 written ministerial statements, and it still does not tell me or my constituents whether the proposed eco-town for Skelton and Clifton Moor in the Vale of York is included. It euphemistically refers to "Leeds City Region, Yorkshire". York is a city in its own right and I have the privilege to represent 24,000 people living there. This is an unacceptable procedure. It flouts normal planning procedures and the fundamental right of any Member of Parliament to represent their constituents on the Floor of the House and to hold the Minister for Housing to account. She should be ashamed of herself.

Harriet Harman: I think that the hon. Lady misunderstands this. This process does not flout normal planning procedure. There will be a three-month consultation and the normal planning processes as they apply under the current law will be applied to this matter.

Philip Davies: May we have a topical debate on political correctness at the Arts Council, in particular the subject of my early-day motion 1318, with regard to the Arts Council request that people should disclose their sexual orientation on the application form for funding?
	 [T hat this House deplores the Arts Council's decision to ask intrusive and irrelevant  questions about the sexual orientation of those applying for grants; believes that this should be a private matter and not something that individuals should be asked to reveal; considers that sexual orientation should be completely irrelevant in modern day Britain; notes that the idea of putting people into stereotypical tick boxes is an example of political correctness which is opposed by 80 per cent, of the people in Britain in an ICM poll; urges the Arts Council to take serious note of the many objections raised by eminent actors and actresses who find this both offensive and insulting; and calls on the Arts Council to end the request for this highly personal information immediately.]
	I hope that the Leader of the House will agree with me that people's sexual orientation should be a private matter, not something that public bodies ask to be disclosed before public money is given. May we have a debate on this important matter?

Harriet Harman: I will bring the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Departure of Culture— [Interruption.] I shall start again. I shall bring his comments to the attention of the relevant Minister. No doubt he will discuss the issue with the Arts Council; if anything transpires from that discussion, he will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mark Pritchard: May we have an urgent debate on the importance of faith schools? Why have the Government set their hearts on a class war against faith schools up and down this land, given all the hard-working parents, governors, teachers and pupils involved? Does the Leader of the House not realise that faith schools take pupils from all sorts of socio-demographic and religious backgrounds?

Harriet Harman: That is certainly accepted. I think that the hon. Gentleman is raising the question of the schools admissions code. All schools need to comply with that code, which was approved by the House. It is the responsibility of the Department for Children, Schools and Families to ensure that it is respected in all areas.

Mark Harper: I, too, greatly enjoyed the right hon. and learned Lady's performance yesterday. May I give her a word of advice? Perhaps she should retain that team of script writers, because I have to say that I have not enjoyed today's questions as much.
	Seriously, Mr. Speaker, you will have noticed an increasing practice among Ministers when they are questioned about their departmental responsibilities. They try to turn things around and ask questions of Opposition Members. Will the right hon. and learned Lady consider the innovation of having questions to Opposition Members? In that way, Ministers could spend the whole of oral questions focusing on answering for their responsibilities and the performance of Her Majesty's Government, rather than on trying to question us. They will have time to do that after the next general election.

Harriet Harman: The point of business questions is to give the House an opportunity to air concerns. They are not supposed to be a laugh, but a serious occasion on which hon. Members from both sides can raise questions to do with their constituencies and the business of the House. In that spirit, I attempt to answer questions, not ask them myself.

Points of Order

Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Just now, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and I both raised with the Leader of the House the absence of a statement from the Minister for Housing about eco-towns. There may be all sorts of reasons why a Minister does not come to the House to make a statement, and I appreciate that it is up to the Government to decide which Ministers come to give which statements to the House.
	However, one would have thought it appropriate for a Minister to come to the House on a matter as important as the one that I have mentioned. Is it not of interest that on this last day of term, business appears to be relatively light and there is plenty of opportunity for the Minister to explain herself? It is significant that yet again bad news is being buried on a day convenient for the Government. May I ask you, with the greatest—

Chris Bryant: It is not bad news.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Edward Garnier: I am asking Mr. Speaker, not the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant); I dare say he has other qualities that will come before us in due course.
	May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you could use your influence on the Government and not allow them to abuse the House—and, more particularly, our constituents—in this way? Our constituents have every right to expect Ministers to explain their policies, especially ones that touch as hard as this one does on the constituents that my hon. Friend and I represent.

Anne McIntosh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Well, if I answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's point of order, perhaps the hon. Lady will not have one. She does not know what I am going to say, does she?
	I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I understand the deep concern about constituency housing that every hon. Member has, including myself. The issue is very important to us all. I am being asked on a point of order to raise the matter with a Minister. All I can really say is that that is not a point of order. However, I am sure that the Minister concerned will have heard the hon. and learned Gentleman's deep concern.

Anne McIntosh: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Lady is going to make a point of order.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and myself? Is the Leader of the House saying that ministerial statements are now regularly being replaced by conference calls? I have never been invited to take part in a conference call before and I would not be given the opportunity to question.
	Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, will you give guidance on why I have not been shown in writing whether the specific eco-town in the Vale of York is going ahead—a city region is referred to—whereas details were provided to the press last night?

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for the words of the Leader of the House or of any Minister. Therefore, such issues are not a matter for me. On the other matters that the hon. Lady raised, once again all I can say is that she has brought her concerns before the House through her point of order. The fact that she and the hon. and learned Gentleman are deeply concerned about the matter will be recorded.

Mark Harper: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw to your attention a written statement on disability benefits and the European Court of Justice made by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire)? It is due to publish information, but only online. I know from your previous responses that you prefer information to be placed before the House, by way of written statement or in the Library. It is much better to have a permanent record of important information. Finally, I should say that just before I came into the Chamber for business questions, the information that I mentioned was still not available online. I should be grateful for some helpful guidance.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should seek an answer through methods other than a point of order. Perhaps he should go to the Table Office to express his deep concern and see what can be done. I think that the Clerks will be able to help him.

Mark Pritchard: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on the number of replies to Members' written questions that refer Members to websites. Given our busy schedules, we do not always have the time to look at websites. If the information has already been published by other Departments, or if there has been a similar reply to a similar question, there is no reason why the Departments cannot print the reply in full. That is not a party political issue, but one for the whole House.

Mr. Speaker: It is for Departments to decide how they answer questions; the important thing is that they do answer questions. We live, of course, in an electronic age and we use computers. If the hon. Gentleman has a deep concern about how written questions are answered, he should take the matter up with the appropriate Minister. I have always been on Ministers' cases when they do not answer hon. Members' questions. However if the hon. Gentleman's issue is about the method of answer, he should pursue that himself.

David Heath: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it correct to describe a reference to a website as a written reply? It seems to me that that changes the procedures of the House in a fundamental way.

Mr. Speaker: It is a written reply. If the hon. Gentleman does not like the reply, there is nothing that I can do to help him. He must pursue the issue again and again.

Theresa May: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that I am right in recalling that at business questions last week, the Leader of the House gave a very satisfactory response on exactly this point. She explained that she believed that written answers should give the full information, not simply refer to a website. Could you ask the Leader of the House to make a statement after the recess to explain what action she has taken to ensure that that will happen?

Mr. Speaker: Once again I say that there are things for the Speaker to do and things for Ministers to do. The Leader of the House is a Cabinet Minister, and there we are. She spoke about the issue last week in business questions. I do not always listen in detail to what the right hon. and learned Lady is saying, as I have to look around for who I am going to call next. The matter is in  Hansard and it is being looked at.

Nicholas Winterton: Mr. Speaker, your answers to these points of order have been very helpful. However, because the Leader of the House is here, she might take on board the concerns that people would still like to receive answers in the traditional and conventional way, rather than electronically. I hope that she will give some response to those concerns.

Harriet Harman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that when someone in a Department is answering a question, if it refers to a previous answer they should not just give the  Hansard reference but repeat the previous answer, because they have it in front of them and it saves hon. Members from having to do work that the Department could put in front of them.
	As regards a reference to a website, if a small bit of information is being referred to, there is no excuse for referring to the website—they should extract it from the website and put it in the answer. If what they are doing, having answered the question, is making a reference to a more general, bigger document of 200 pages, that is fair enough. However, it is not fair enough for parliamentary answers just to be signposts in six different directions—they should attempt to meet the Member's point and be accountable. I agree with the specific points that hon. Members have raised. My hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House and I are on the case, and I ask for specific bits of information in respect of this to be given to us, and we will follow them up with Departments. Departments are responsible for running the Government policy for which they have responsibility, but they are also accountable to the House.

Robert Smith: It might be helpful for the House to be reminded that the Procedure Committee is conducting an inquiry into written questions, and all this information will be helpfully put before it to further that inquiry.

Mr. Speaker: That is a very good point which allows me to move on to the main business—a topical debate on the drug strategy.

Topical Debate
	 — 
	Drug Strategy

Vernon Coaker: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of the Drug Strategy.
	Let me start by thanking many of the hon. Members whom I can see around me on both sides of the House for the contribution that they have made to the development of the drug strategy that we published a few weeks ago. Their contribution to what is an incredibly important debate in many of our communities has been welcomed. Although they may not agree with all the various points in the strategy, I hope that they recognise some of the differences and changes that have been made. In particular, some of my hon. Friends—and, to be fair, Opposition Members—have said that while it is important to concentrate on the enforcement side, we must also, in order to reduce harm to communities, consider what to do about dealing in the street, crack houses, and those who run gangs in order to supply drugs in a neighbourhood.
	We must also think about treatment. We have been very successful in increasing the numbers going into treatment, which has been welcomed by all Members. We have taken on board what people have said to us about ensuring that treatment is effective, that it is not only about numbers but outcomes, and that when people enter treatment and seek to leave it we not only consider whether abstinence is appropriate but take into account all the other services that are necessary to support somebody in those circumstances. That means closer relationships with housing and employment services, the benefits system and so on. We try to reflect that in the new strategy.
	Those important contributions to the debate have enabled us to move on.

Philip Davies: I hope that the Minister will focus on the role played by prisons. Far too often, people go into prison as drug addicts having committed volume crimes to feed their addiction. They come out a few months later—a very few months later in many cases—still drug addicts, with no testing beforehand to check whether that is the case. Moreover, there are still too many people who take drugs for the first time in prison. Will he dedicate some time to explaining what is being done in prisons to stop the proliferation of drugs?

Vernon Coaker: Certainly, one of the things to consider is how drugs get into prisons and to ensure that we are robust in that respect. A lot of measures have been put in place. We have increased the amount of money that is available for prison drug treatment, and it is now about trying to ensure that that treatment is effective. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a real interest in these matters. He is right to say that just because somebody is locked up that does not mean that they stop being a drug addict, and we need to take measures to deal with that. We need to consider not only what happens to somebody when they are in prison and what is the effective treatment in that situation, but what support is given to them when they leave prison. There are sometimes difficult issues to deal with involving chaotic lifestyles and so on. If that support is not available for somebody in those circumstances, the possibility of their returning to crime, whatever the rights and wrongs of that, is increased.

Paul Flynn: A good place to start would be to look at the outcome of the billions of pounds that have been spent and the results of the policies adopted 10 years ago, which, I am sorry to say, have failed abjectly. One of those policies was to reduce drug taking among young people by 50 per cent. Virtually nothing has worked in 10 years of effort by this Government. Can we not at least say, "Let's look at what happened—it went wrong", and examine why it went wrong?

Vernon Coaker: I am sorry about that. I discuss and debate many of these matters with my hon. Friend at great length. We have tried to learn from what happened under the previous drug strategy. I know that he welcomes many of the things in the new strategy, such as support for families and making treatment more effective. I point out to him that the British crime survey figures show a fall in the number of 16 to 59-year-olds using all drugs in the past 10 years, during which period the proportion of 16 to 24-year-olds reporting the use of drugs in the past year has also fallen. He asks whether what has happened is good enough, whether we are where we want to be, and whether we want to do more. Of course we want to do more and to be more effective. My point was that in developing the new drug strategy and trying to take forward the agenda, it is important to recognise that the previous drug strategy delivered a reduction in the numbers of those taking drugs, adults and children alike.

Graham Brady: Does the Minister agree, though, that one of the most obvious ways in which we could tackle the problem of supply is to end the absurd situation whereby it is possible readily to buy seeds for strong strains of cannabis on the internet, which also gives advice on how to obtain resin from those strains?

Vernon Coaker: As the hon. Gentleman and I have discussed on several occasions, we need to monitor certain things that happen in respect of the internet. We keep all these matters under review. I am concerned about the availability of cannabis seeds on the internet, as well as some of the paraphernalia that is available from shops and elsewhere. He makes a reasonable point, and we need to consider what we can do about it.
	The new drug strategy provides the Government and their partners with an opportunity to build on some of the successes of the previous strategy and to achieve a substantial and sustained reduction in the harms caused by drug misuse. Drug misuse poses significant challenges. It damages health, undermines family life and gives rise to high levels of crime. The costs to society are enormous in financial terms and lost opportunities. Reducing the harm caused by drugs must therefore remain one of the Government's top priorities, and it is obviously a priority for this House.

Barry Gardiner: I probably speak for many Members on both sides of the House in saying that I welcome the Minister's openness in meeting us and discussing these issues, which are incredibly important to us and to our constituents. I thank him for agreeing to reconsider the question whether khat should be a banned substance. It causes extreme difficulties, particularly within the Somali community, some of whom have recently been in touch with me and are very grateful to him for his intervention on this matter.

Vernon Coaker: A lot of representations have been made to me, particularly from the Somali community and from Members of Parliament. Indeed, I have just written to Members about the issue. We are looking to see what evidence there is with respect to this matter. We have asked for it to be looked into, and we are developing how we deal with it. We shall examine what comes back to determine how we proceed.
	The Government are committed to be responsive to the needs of communities and to the views of our stakeholders and partners. The drug strategy will be delivered in partnership, and it is for that reason that it was developed in partnership. It is informed by the findings of a detailed, extensive and independently conducted consultation. Following the consultation, as hon. Members will know, the new drug strategy was launched on 27 February, and we are now working with stakeholders to put in place mechanisms to deliver the strategy in the most effective manner.
	I am pleased to note that those same stakeholders, along with representatives of service users and members of the public, have generally welcomed the new strategy and provided very positive feedback. The new strategy builds on the very real achievements of the previous 10 years, while learning lessons, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) has pointed out, and it draws on the experience of all those involved in its delivery.
	A few of the achievements that we can point to include drug use being at its lowest level since 1998; the fact that the number of people entering drug treatment has more than doubled over the same period, with average waiting times having fallen significantly so that 96 per cent. of clients are receiving treatment within three weeks of being assessed; a fall in drug-related crime of around 20 per cent. since the introduction of the drug interventions programme in 2003; and the introduction of a range of new powers that have allowed the police and other partners to strengthen our enforcement effort, seizing more drugs and drug dealers' assets and closing crack houses, which can be so destructive to the confidence of communities. I am pleased to say that since the introduction of those powers in 2003, more than 1,000 crack houses have been closed, and all of us would like to see even more of them being closed.
	Those achievements have delivered real improvements to the lives and experiences of families and communities all over the country, but we know that more remains to be done, including closing crack houses that are still open. Although we can see where the drug strategy has been successful, we can also see where more work is needed, or where we need a change of approach. For example, while drug-related crime has been driven down, we recognise that further support needs to be given to help people rebuild their lives, so that they do not fall back into drug use and crime—a point made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies).

John Mann: The Minister will have seen the representations made by the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who has twice, in writing, proposed "shooting galleries"—injecting rooms. Has the Minister had the chance to consider the right hon. Gentleman's idea, and does he intend to introduce such a proposal? If he does, please do not let it be in my constituency.

Vernon Coaker: We have no intention to introduce so-called shooting galleries anywhere in the country, including my hon. Friend's constituency.
	The Government's vision is to produce a long-term and sustainable reduction in the harm associated with drugs, where fewer people start using drugs; where early intervention prevents and reduces the harms caused by substance misuse, particularly among those most at risk; where people with drug problems receive the treatment and support that they need to move on to lead healthy, productive lives; where communities are relieved of drug-related crime and the associated nuisance; and where organised trafficking networks are dismantled and their assets are recovered. That means that we want fewer young people and families to be harmed by drug misuse. We want to make sure that treatment is as effective as possible and that people get access to the support they need to re-establish their lives.
	We want to continue to drive down drug-related crime, and we want to put communities at the heart of our approach, working with them to tackle problems and communicating more effectively with them to improve confidence. We have set four targets that will help us to achieve that vision: to increase the number of drug users in effective treatment; to reduce drug-related offending; to reduce the number of people who think drug-related antisocial behaviour is a problem in their area; and to reduce substance misuse among young people. The new drug strategy and the associated action plan set out the action that the Government and our partners will take to reach those targets. Both documents are based around the four priorities of protecting communities, preventing harm to children, young people and families, adopting new approaches to drug treatment and social reintegration, and communications and community engagement.
	Before I say any more about those priorities and protecting communities, in the time I have left I want to say something about cannabis. Our message has always been that cannabis is harmful and illegal. Although its use is decreasing, there is real public concern about the mental health effects, and it is our role to be prepared to respond to new evidence that shows a new threat or potential for increased levels of harm. We must be confident that we have the right position on classification, which is why the Home Secretary asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to review its position. The ACMD is continuing its review and will submit it and its advice to the Home Secretary at the end of this month. A decision about the reclassification, or not, of cannabis will be taken at that time, when we have received that evidence from the ACMD.
	In conclusion, we believe that we made progress under the previous drug strategy. The new drug strategy will have an emphasis on enforcement, but it will also place emphasis on ensuring that treatment is more effective. We have to look at the outcomes that come from treatment, and much of that will relate to the support we give, not only to get people into treatment, but to ensure that such treatment is effective, allowing people to move towards drug-free lives as far as is possible. I thank hon. Members for contributing to this extremely important debate, and I am grateful for the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner). I will continue to listen to what others have to say, because we all want to reduce the harm to our communities and to individuals.

James Brokenshire: Despite the Minister's fine words, the UK has the highest level of problem drug use in Europe. In 10 years, total recorded drugs offences have increased by 43 per cent., and, by the Government's own admission, class A drug use remains stubbornly high. The Government's latest strategy to "protect families and communities" has therefore been greeted with understandable scepticism and, in some quarters, derision. Class A drug use generates an estimated £15.4 billion in crime and health costs every year. The drug and alcohol charity Addaction estimates that since this Government came to power the total cost amounts to £110 billion, which is more than the NHS budget.
	It is a question of not only the monetary cost, but the human cost of drug addiction. In 2006, the number of confirmed hepatitis C infections reported from laboratories in England rose to 8,346—a rise of 10 per cent. in a year, with the Health Protection Agency forecasting an increasing number of deaths, transplants and hospital admissions for hepatitis-related end-stage liver disease.
	The single biggest risk factor is injecting drug use. Illicit drugs are cheaper than they have ever been. Since 1997, the average price of cocaine has fallen by a third and the price of heroin has dropped by 40 per cent. Even the simplest economic and market analysis tells me that if the price has gone down that much, the Government have failed to control supply. That is reflected by declining enforcement. In 2005, 1,082 people were prosecuted for the unlawful importation or exportation of drugs and 1,061 were convicted. In 2006, the number had fallen to 904 prosecutions and 870 convictions.
	The Government now try to offer us a new force to secure our porous borders, but this shiny new agency with its shiny new uniforms will have no police representation and no new powers of arrest. In reality, it is the existing border control badged under a different name. The effect is that it will not be able to arrest a single person caught with drugs. So much for the Prime Minister's promise that this force would have police powers to deal with those suspected of criminal offences.
	What of the Prime Minister's other statements about changing cannabis from a class C to a class B drug? Last September, he said:
	"Why I want to upgrade cannabis and make it more a drug that people worry about is because we don't want to send out a message—just like with alcohol—to teenagers, that we accept these things."
	He was right about alcohol. The Government's ill-conceived licensing policies have led to more violence on our streets late at night and to hospital A and E departments bearing the brunt, with alcohol related admissions rising by a quarter.
	What is the Prime Minister waiting for? Why the delay? What more persuasion can he possibly need? Super-strength skunk cannabis now accounts for some 80 per cent. of all seizures. Its links with psychosis, paranoia and schizophrenia become more apparent every day. Even the Association of Chief Police Officers, which initially supported the decision to downgrade cannabis, now states:
	"The 2004 change in classification of cannabis has inadvertently provided an opportunity for the greater and now flourishing illegal market in the production, distribution and use of cannabis throughout the UK and potentially beyond."
	We need action, not more delay. I challenge the Under-Secretary to make a commitment here and now to reclassifying cannabis. He has the evidence, the power and, frankly, the duty to do so.

Paul Flynn: The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) made some perceptive and interesting comments about drug policy when he was a Back Bencher and a member of the Home Affairs Committee. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with him? What are his proposals for reducing the number of drug deaths in Britain?

James Brokenshire: As we know, 80 per cent. of seizures are of super-strength cannabis. We therefore urgently need to change the classification and send out the message that the Prime Minister said that he wanted to convey. I will deal with treatment, which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, shortly, because it is a fundamental issue and one of the failures that we must tackle.
	The Home Office does not appear to know the scale of the problem. Its strategy document states:
	"Cannabis factories represent a worrying development. It is clear that serious, organised criminals are investing in the production of cannabis on a commercial scale."
	The document continues:
	"Intelligence from the community will be used to target drug markets and the sources of domestically-produced drugs such as cannabis factories."
	Yet when we ask for a breakdown of the number of cannabis factories detected by each police force, the Home Office simply replies that that information is not kept centrally. So much for intelligence.
	The flawed approach applies not only to enforcement. Drug treatment is mired—under the latest plan, it will stay mired—in muddled and ineffective thinking. It is telling that the latest policy document contains only two references to "recovery". Neither relates to recovery from drugs—they both refer to asset recovery—and I will say more about that shortly.
	Fundamentally, the Government's approach is not about ridding people of addiction, but switching people from an illicit drug to a substitute prescribed drug. The necessity of abstinence, which is recognised as the key step on the road to recovery in other European countries, is notably absent from the approach. As the prisons and addictions forum of the Centre for Policy Studies says in its critique of the latest strategy:
	"The harm reduction techniques that are espoused to achieve this goal, when stripped bare, seem to rely almost entirely on replacing one substance with another as a way to manage and solve dependency without addressing the issues underlying it. Government policy in the treatment domain is revealed, like the emperor's new clothes, as not being treatment at all."

Philip Davies: Thanks to the Centre for Social Justice, I spent four days at St. George's Crypt in Leeds, which deals with homelessness and addiction because the two usually go hand in hand. I commend that work to my hon. Friend. He might like to go to St. George's Crypt to ascertain what is being done to promote abstinence—the very point that he made—to get people off drugs rather than using replacements. My hon. Friend is making a powerful point.

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recommending that work. It is important to recognise the great work that so many charities, voluntary organisations and the third sector do in providing treatment and support. One of the problems with the Government's approach of regional commissioning is that it stifles such innovation.
	We have only to examine the evidence. The cost of methadone prescriptions has increased by £6 million in only two years to £22 million. Last October, the BBC revealed that, of 180,000-odd people signed up for treatment, 20,000 never had any, 80,000 did not complete their treatment and only 5,000—less than 3 per cent.—left the Government programme free of illegal drugs.

John Mann: What would the hon. Gentleman say to hon. Members who have called for more methadone prescribing in newspapers such as  The Daily Telegraph? One example is the right hon. Member for Witney, who did so in an article in  The Daily Telegraph and another in the  Edinburgh Evening News.

James Brokenshire: Methadone has its place in the treatment regime, for example when sex workers move from addiction and genuine desperation. My point is that people should not be kept on methadone, but moved from that through abstinence-based treatment, so that they beat their addiction.
	With the Government, if one does not measure something, it simply does not matter. The new document provides an Orwellian definition of "effective treatment", which is satisfied if someone is
	"discharged from the treatment system 12 weeks or more after triage; or that remain in treatment 12 weeks after triage; or that were discharged in less than 12 weeks in a care planned way".
	As I said earlier, it is hardly surprising that recovery is the word that dare not speak its name.
	Instead, the Government are supposedly offering us more rights of asset recovery, with the Home Office news release breathlessly promising that
	"those who buy 'bling', plasma screens and other household goods, to avoid circulating cash, will have their assets seized before they have a good chance to disperse them".
	No one has been able to explain what is wrong with the existing powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which include confiscation orders and restraint orders that can be sought from a judge before conviction. The policy does not bear examination. Even if there were a hypothetical need for more rights, the complete failure of the Assets Recovery Agency, necessitating its merger with Serious Organised Crime Agency, underlines where the real focus and attention should lie.
	As for the Government's apparent proposals to remove benefits from drug users dropping out of treatment, as one drugs charity kindly put it, the policy "needs further explanation".
	The Government are out of ideas, out of the real world and on the wrong path. The plan is an explicit admission of failure, which cannot be disguised by the hotch-potch of gimmicks cobbled together to masquerade as a strategy. We need a zero-tolerance approach to drugs from our shores to our streets, with a proper border police force, the reclassification of cannabis, abstinence-based rehabilitation, and drug treatment in prison.
	Carl Gustav Jung said:
	"Every form of addiction is a bad thing, irrespective of whether it is alcohol, morphine or idealism".
	The Government's addiction is not idealism, but image: they measure inputs rather than achieve outcomes; they want to spin perception rather than change reality; and they commission reviews rather than take action. Their time has come for a long spell in rehab.

Paul Flynn: I will not pursue the superficial speech of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire), which will embarrass his party leader.
	We are in a time of change, and we must have the honesty to examine our two 10-year strategies. One was introduced in the House—I recall the debate 10 years ago, when there was great optimism. The drugs tsar was to be appointed and things were going to change enormously. A reduction of 50 per cent. in drug use was proposed—a ludicrously ambitious figure. We are also signed up to another policy; indeed, the whole free world is signed up to the United Nations policy. It was decided in the same year, 1998, and its aim is the complete eradication of or a substantial reduction in all drug cultivation and use. Who could sign up to such a thing or believe that that was possible? That policy comes to fruition this year, but we have made virtually no progress on it.
	What has happened since 1998? We have spent billions of pounds, with the agreement of every party in the House; there was only dissenting voice to the policy in 1998. The result is figures—I will give just one, as I do not want to spend my whole 10 minutes talking about the figures—that show a reduction in the number of deaths caused by heroin. There has not been a reduction; what has happened is that the base year was changed. A reduction of 2 per cent. is being claimed on the basis of setting the base year as 1999, but if we use 1998, the proper base year, we see that there has been an increase in deaths of 10 per cent.

Geoffrey Cox: The hon. Gentleman is making the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) made for him. The thrust of my hon. Friend's point was that the Government are spinning perception. The hon. Gentleman is exactly right: figures have changed, statistics are manipulated and no progress is being made. That was the criticism.

Paul Flynn: I will not go into the details of why the speech that the hon. Member for Hornchurch made was superficial, but he missed the point. Cannabis is a minor part of the problem, and reclassification is of no importance whatever. There are much more serious problems, which the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) well understands. We need to get to the heart of them, and that is happening elsewhere.
	There are two, or possibly three, optimistic signs. One is at the United Nations, which has recognised that world opinion is changing. There was a time when this country had very few drug users—fewer than 1,000 addicts. We became tough and had a zero-tolerance policy, doing all the things that the Opposition spokesman in this debate wants to do, but sadly we did not become intelligent about drugs. We had that policy in 1971. The result is that we now do not have 1,000 addicts; we have 280,000 addicts. We have a problem that is permanent and a great scourge among our young people.
	We did not show an example to the people in eastern Europe, who effectively said, "When the iron curtain fell and drugs came into our countries, we looked to you guys in the west to tell us how to deal with them." What they heard was a babel of conflicting voices and advice. The result is 5 million addicts in the Russian Federation. I had the experience of visiting a hospital in Moscow—I can feel the emotion churning up as I think of it—that was filled with thousands of patients, every one of whom was a child of a drug user or sex worker born with AIDS. Those things have happened because of our failure to tackle poverty and because of the self-gratification of the politicians. We want popular policies that give us good headlines in the daily papers, which do not tell us that we will go to pot if we are found in possession of an intelligent idea or something that works.
	There is a new European convention, which was presented by a British rapporteur in the Council of the Europe in September and is supported by all parties in the House in the Council and by all 47 countries there. The convention is similar to another document called "The Rome Consensus", which enjoys the support of more than 120 nations and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Those two documents—"The Rome Consensus" and the new European convention, which is yet to go to the Council of Ministers—say a great deal, but the basic argument is that our reliance on the criminal justice system for solving the problem of drugs has not worked. Substitution has worked. Every £1 that we spend on substitution, treatment, needle exchanges and so on is worth £12 that we spend on the criminal justice system.
	The situation in our prisons is tragic. I had the awful experience of visiting the family of two young people in my constituency who would be classified as two of the great successes of our system, because they went into prison as heroin users and came out clean. The system was working—what a triumph; how wonderful. Indeed, I am sure that those young people are named somewhere in the figures. The young man who came out lived a day; the woman who came out lived a week. They went back to their drugs because they did not have the chance of being looked after. That is an abject failure.
	We are now in an awful position. The hon. Member for Hornchurch said that we are the worst country in Europe for drugs, which is as it is. Every one of the countries that has shooting-up galleries and has taken a more compassionate line, treating drug users not as criminals, but as patients, has less harm. We are missing something and we are failing. We need to get to the point where we recognise that, despite all our self-satisfaction as politicians—our desire to get good headlines to get ourselves re-elected—we are failing a generation whose lives are being destroyed by drugs. That is the lesson of today.
	I believe that there will be a change. The atmosphere is changing in the United Nations, which determines everything. The United Nations went along with the myth that we can control drugs at the supply—we tried that in Colombia for nearly 30 years and in Afghanistan, but it has been an utter, abject failure. After £250 million of taxpayers' money being spent on drug eradication in Helmand province, the result is that the drug crops there are the highest in history and the price of heroin on the streets of London is the cheapest that it has ever been. That is failure from both angles.
	Let us stop congratulating ourselves on what clever politicians we are, on what great successes we have enjoyed or on the press supporting us, including on the completely foolish idea of reclassifying cannabis, especially when all the evidence is that reclassifying it probably made very little difference, because fashion and many other things were involved. Indeed, the use of cannabis went down, and everyone admits that. There is another demand to reclassify it upwards, but the whole of drug-taking policy, in my 20 years in Parliament, has been an evidence-free zone that is rich in prejudice, ignorance and denial.
	We are all drug users in many ways. We should look to a policy that puts the emphasis on education, the truth and the things that work. They include drug substitution, which has been mentioned, not some idiotic idea about zero tolerance, which does not work, or the other foolish idea, about khat. Khat is a drug with its own dangers, but if we decide to prohibit it, we will immediately drive a wedge between the Somali and Yemeni communities and the police, and drive the trade underground. Khat is currently legal, but if it became illegal, Somali areas would be divided up into territories that were guarded with guns. If we want to create another minor crime wave, we should prohibit khat, because people will keep using it—they have used it for centuries as part of their tradition.
	Prohibiting khat is another instant solution that appeals to politicians. I urge the House to consider the position in the real world. We have a terrible record as politicians, but when I saw the parents of the young man who died in my constituency, did I blame myself for what I had done? I know that if the policies that I and others advocated in this place 20 years ago had been put into practice and come to fruition, those young people would probably still be alive today.
	We have taken a path that is not based on the truth or on the practical ways of dealing with the problem. One of the best examples from other countries is from Portugal, which has already been mentioned. In 2001, the Government in Portugal decided to de-penalise all drugs. It was not a popular policy—the Government there were howled at by the press and the public thought that the politicians had gone mad—but the result was a reduction in the total number of deaths from drugs in Portugal of 50 per cent. in five years. That is the most spectacular result of any drugs policy anywhere in the world. Other countries have adopted bold policies—the shooting-up galleries, for instance—that have been unpopular with lots of people, but that is not the path of popularity, which is increased drug use and the continuing scourge of drugs that is affecting the whole world.
	I know that many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, so I will draw my remarks to a close by begging everyone from both major parties—indeed, from all parts of the House—to look at what was said here in 1998 and at the ambitions that were announced. None of them has been achieved. We have had 10 years of utter, abject failure from all angles—from the waste of money involved to the fact that not a single prison in this country is free of drug use. One Conservative Member told me that he went into a prison and was told by a prisoner, "I've got a toothache that I'd like to get an aspirin for, but I have to wait until tomorrow morning to see a doctor, yet I can go from my cell and get every illegal drug you'd care to mention within a quarter of an hour." That is the reality of life in prison.
	If we cannot keep drugs out of prison, what hope is there for all the brave policies of zero tolerance working in the community and in clubs in our society? We need to look at this issue through new eyes and to read the evidence, which says that the harm reduction techniques work. We need to concentrate on those techniques and end our reliance on the criminal justice system, which has increased the problem so tragically over the past 35 years.

Tom Brake: I welcome this topical debate. The reason for its topicality was the drugs strategy, but there has also recently been a leak from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the panel of 23 experts who are apparently going to recommend that there should be no reclassification of cannabis. That leak reminds us that we need to ensure that our decisions are based on evidence and science if we are serious about tackling the scourge of drugs, as the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) suggested.
	The leak also prompts a number of questions, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer. If the leak is accurate, is he in a position to confirm whether he will follow the advice of the advisory council? Will he confirm that, if the Government chose not to follow that advice, it would be the first time that that had happened? Will he also tell us whether he has considered putting the advisory council on a more formal footing, to allow more expertise to be brought in and perhaps to give it a wider remit? Such a change could create the equivalent of a standing royal commission to look at the issue of drugs, to ensure that we were using science and evidence-based facts to devise the most effective policy for tackling the problem.

Graham Brady: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that, at the time of the previous reclassification of cannabis, there was already considerable evidence to link the use of cannabis—particularly the stronger strains—with the incidence of psychosis and schizophrenia? However, the advisory council chose to ignore that evidence. It would be unsurprising if the council chose to stand by its earlier decision, but should we not be cautious about accepting its recommendation, given its record on this matter?

Tom Brake: The hon. Gentleman has made a strong point that in some respects strengthens my point about widening the remit of the advisory council or setting up a royal commission that would have greater expertise to ensure that its decisions took into account a wider range of views. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Government would favour such a proposal.
	We need to focus on all the links in the drugs chain, from production through to supply, if we are to tackle this issue. I am sure that the Minister would agree that one aspect of the problem is the glamour that is often associated with drugs. This was highlighted in the recent annual report from the International Narcotics Control Board, which stated that treating stars leniently undermined people's faith in the criminal justice system and had a damaging effect on adolescents. Celebrities who are users might well be able to use their wealth to buy their way out of their habit through rehabilitation, but others might not be in that fortunate position. The Minister will undoubtedly agree that those so-called stars should be treated in exactly the same way as anyone else who is caught in possession of drugs.
	I wonder whether the Minister is as sad as I am that some celebrities seem to treat drugs as a bit of a joke. I have informed the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) that I was going to refer to him in his debate. He is not in his place today. It was extremely regrettable that, on "Have I Got News for You", he said:
	"I think I was once given cocaine but I sneezed and so it did not go up my nose. In fact, I may have been doing icing sugar."
	I do not know what other Members think about that, but I believe that that comment sends out a message that drugs are not a serious issue and that they can be treated almost as a joke. That is extremely regrettable coming from a person who is seeking to become the Mayor of London.
	There is much in the drugs strategy that we could not possibly oppose, including protecting communities through robust enforcement to tackle drug supply, drug-related crime and antisocial behaviour, and preventing harm to children, young people and families affected by drug misuse. The Government are going to have to demonstrate how they are going to achieve those aims. I had a useful meeting a few days ago with a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority. She referred to a family in which the mother lived off the proceeds of crime, the daughter was dealing and the son was in prison for having dealt drugs. There were also two children of primary school age in that family. It is exactly that type of scenario that the Government's drugs strategy needs to address. How can we help all the different members of that family to get out of the situation that they are in? In particular, how can we ensure that those young children do not inevitably follow the line of business that the elders in that family have regrettably taken?

John Mann: The hon. Gentleman is giving the House an interesting analysis of the situation, but I am failing to hear any precise policies. I should like to draw his attention to Liberal Democrat policy briefing No. 10, which states that the Liberal Democrats' policy involves:
	"Maintaining the classification of cannabis as a Class C drug".
	Would that be his party's policy regardless of what the advisory council might say? If not, why is it in his party's policy document?

Tom Brake: I can confirm that that is our policy. I am sure that, if the advisory council were to come up with a recommendation that cannabis should be reclassified, we would want to look at that policy area very carefully. However, the leak suggests that that is not what it is going to recommend. As the hon. Member for Newport, West said earlier, the evidence shows that cannabis use went down as a result of the reclassification, rather than up.

John Mann: I should like to clarify this important matter of policy. Is it the hon. Gentleman's policy to accept the advice of the advisory council on any issue relating to drugs, whatever recommendation it might make?

Tom Brake: I can only say that our policy will be strongly influenced by the advisory council. I cannot prejudge what recommendations it might come up with in the next five years that might conflict with existing party policy. We shall have to cross that bridge when we get to it, but our policy is that we would like to establish a standing royal commission so that these issues can be addressed in a scientific and, perhaps, independent way. I think that most Members would admit that that is extremely difficult to achieve at the moment, because of the pressures that we face from outside. That sometimes makes it difficult for science to dictate the decisions that we make here.
	We desperately need the Government's drugs strategy to deliver. Our drugs policies are barely keeping a lid on this devastating plague. As other Members have pointed out, this country has one of the most punitive approaches to drugs, while also having among the highest levels of use. We need to combine placing a greater emphasis on tackling drug use as a public health issue with taking a much more focused approach to the dealers and organised criminals who peddle these drugs, destroying lives and fuelling criminal activity. If that is what the Government's drugs strategy delivers, we will support it.

Brian Iddon: I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) had to say. It came over loud and clear, and it sounded like a war on drugs. I have always been against waging a war on drugs in the way that the Americans have tried to do. I prefer to wage a war on the causes of drug misuse, which, as far as I am concerned, are social exclusion and poverty. I know which party put people into poverty. I also know which party is now trying to dig people out of poverty; it is the party that I support.
	I believe that the Government have the political will to deal with the problem, although, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I do not always agree with them. The 10-year drug strategy document that has just been published marks a shift—no more than that—in the right direction. There is more talk about helping families, rather than about individuals who are addicted. An addict causes havoc in the entire family, not just the immediate family. There is also more talk about early intervention. As we know, in the case of all drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, the problem tends to start when a person is nine, 10, 11 or 12. If no one intervenes at that stage, the job is lost. The young person will truant, become an addict and a general nuisance, associating with the criminal element of society.
	The United Nations has made some interesting comments recently. Its International Narcotics Control Board publishes a report in March each year, and I usually attend the launches. The press kit accompanying the 2005 report includes a statement from Professor Hamid Ghodse, of St George's hospital in London, who said:
	"Both rural farmers and socially marginalized city dwellers need and are entitled to the opportunity of a legitimate livelihood.
	We should make renewed efforts to reach all of them, striving to create environments less conducive to the production and abuse of drugs."
	I think that that is what it is all about. I do not think that the answer is to start a war on people once they have become addicted, although it is of course important to try to give people treatment.
	On 7 March this year the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs published a very interesting document, which I commend to Members. It is called "Making drug control 'fit for purpose': Building on the UNGASS decade", and was provided for a conference in Vienna between 10 and 14 March. It looks back over the 100 years during which we have tried to control the misuse of substances throughout the world. I shall return to the report shortly, but the main point that I want to make is that any war on drugs, any zero-tolerance approach or any hard action of that kind merely displaces the problem. There are a number of instances in which we have caused ourselves serious problems.
	The Moroccans have been waging a war on the farmers who have been growing cannabis in their country. Seventy per cent. of the cannabis sold in Britain used to come from that source. It is noteworthy that Moroccan cannabis contained only 5 per cent. of the psychoactive ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC. It was smuggled across the straits of Gibraltar to the Costa del Sol. The Spanish were waging a war on drugs all along the coast, and as a result the import of cannabis from Morocco to Europe, including Britain, almost ceased. That created a vacuum in this country, which has now been filled by Thai and Vietnamese criminals who have started to farm cannabis in rented houses all over Britain. In Bolton alone, the police have invaded 30 houses in three months. People have been caught farming cannabis from the cellar to the attic.
	Seventy per cent. of the cannabis that is now sold on the streets of Britain is home-grown rather than imported. By stopping the Moroccan trade in cannabis with a 5 per cent. THC content, we have put on to the streets, through our own war on drugs, cannabis with a 15 per cent. THC content, which is causing our young people immense problems. Of course if children of nine or 10 start smoking cannabis of that sort they will blow their minds, and probably even damage their minds.

Graham Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Brian Iddon: I should prefer to continue, if I may.
	We must be very careful about the way in which we apply our policies in this war on drugs. China had a huge problem with opium. In fact, it is often said that we planted opium in China to undermine the social structure of that country. So of course there was a war on the use of opium in China. What did we do? We displaced it to the golden triangle. Then we had a war on the use of opium in the golden triangle, and what happened next? It was displaced to Afghanistan. Ninety per cent. of the heroin that comes into this country now comes from Afghanistan. Every time we take action, we displace the problem.
	Another example is cocaine production in the Andean countries. Everyone knows that Colombia is, or was, the main source of supply. The Americans sprayed the crops. They gave the Colombian Government arms with which to tackle the rebels who were using the profits of cocaine manufacture to try to take over the Government. What happened there? We displaced production of the coca bush to Bolivia and Peru. The message that I am trying to get across is that the war on drugs does not work.
	Most of the cocaine that came into Britain came in via the Caribbean rim countries, especially Jamaica, and Kingston in particular. There were terrible problems with the selling of cocaine to European countries, including Britain. What did we do? We sent the Royal Navy into the Caribbean, and we have had huge successes there, but that has not ended the problem. Although cocaine is still coming into Britain via Jamaica, it is arriving in smaller quantities. Most of it is now going to west Africa, and some west African countries are now experiencing the corruption and deaths that Jamaica has experienced for decades.
	We must stop this war on drugs. It simply does not work, and we are spending billions of pounds on it. I am more concerned about the fact that we are displacing people by adopting a zero-tolerance approach and increasing enforcement measures. People do not want to be arrested. They do not want to go to prison, and they do not want criminal records. But there are plenty of drugs available on the internet, and there are plenty of drugs in the doctor's parlour—he will provide a prescription for them—and those are the drugs to which people are turning now.
	Let me quote another interesting statement:
	"The abuse and trafficking of prescription drugs is set to exceed illicit drug abuse",
	the United Nations has warned, adding:
	"The 'high' they provide is comparable to practically every illicitly manufactured drug."
	That is what is happening now. There are role models, from film stars to Robbie Williams. I could name a string of very interesting people who are not using illicit drugs, but getting their "buzz" from prescription drugs and even drugs that can be bought over the counter in the local chemist's shop, cough mixture included.
	I have been concerned about this for 10 years, and when the United Nations document turned up I decided, as chairman of the all-party parliamentary drugs misuse group, to interest the group in launching a public inquiry into the misuse of prescription and over-the-counter drugs. We launched one last summer, and so far we have received 75 pieces of evidence from organisations and individuals. It is a pity that I have no time to read out some of the letters from individuals whose relatives are addicted, in old people's homes or in their own homes. Carers have written to me saying, for instance, "The elderly person for whom I am caring is being completely knocked out by the general practitioner, and is addicted to benzodiazepines", or to over-the-counter or prescription drugs containing codeine or morphine.
	That is a huge problem, and it has nothing to do with the war on drugs. It is happening in front of us. I say "By all means adopt a zero-tolerance approach, but you will not stop people seeking relief from the turmoil that their minds are causing them." For that is the reason why people turn to drug misuse: it is triggered by something that has gone wrong in their lives, perhaps the death of a close relative or a friend. We ought to intervene and help those people instead of locking them up.
	The UN says that drug misuse is a "disease of development". What it means by that is that we in the more developed countries are more subject to stress; we are always increasing our performance and productivity, which increases our stress levels, and we sometimes need to escape from reality in order to get some relief. That is why people turn to misusing not only controlled drugs, but increasingly prescription and over-the-counter drugs.
	I have discussed geographical displacement, to borrow a phrase the UN uses. It also mentions substance displacement. Methamphetamine was not a classified drug at one time, but it came on to the scene and we recently bunged it into class A. As a medicinal chemist, I know that every time we classify a drug into categories A, B or C, there will be another drug that is not yet illegal waiting in the queue for some person—or, rather, thousands of people—to misuse. All of this will never stop.
	The Science and Technology Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), the RSA—or Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce—and even eminent people such as Professor Colin Blakemore and Professor David Nutt, who is a member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, have said that drug classification is a waste of time. This debate about whether cannabis should have been kept in class B, as previously, or should remain in class C, where we have now dropped it, or be put back into class B again is yo-yo politics, and it will have absolutely no effect at all on young people. They want to know which drugs give them a buzz, regardless of whether they are illegal. They want to know how much those drugs cost, too, and as the street prices of drugs are falling, more and more people will, of course, be tempted to try them. It is not the classification of drugs that matters; it is economic factors such as price that switch people on to drugs once they have had a problem in their lives.
	This is a complex issue, and I recommend that Members read the recent UN reports. Let me read out one final quote. The UN commission says that
	"there is indeed a spirit of reform in the air"—
	I hope we hear it here this afternoon—"to make the conventions" of 1961, 1971 and 1981, which are the three UN conventions on which our policies are based,
	"fit for purpose and adapt them to a reality on the ground that is different from the time that they were drafted".
	I shall leave the House with that thought.

David Amess: I enjoyed listening to the speeches of the hon. Members for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), and I shall re-read them to absorb further what they had to say. I have not previously heard the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East speak on the specific issues before us, although I have heard the hon. Member for Newport, West discuss them. He and I worked together on issues concerning arthritis, so we will not fall out on cannabis. However, I will just say to both those hon. Members that I fundamentally disagree with their views on cannabis.
	We have a good and competent Minister, and I listened carefully to his comments. I wish him well, but he has a tough battle ahead. In my early years in the House, when I represented a different constituency, a constituent called Leah Betts died as a result of ecstasy; her father later became an adviser to the Government. A satirical programme managed to gain admittance to this House and interviewed me about a drug called "cake". Lord Newton of Braintree had the Minister's job at the time. His officials answered the questions we tabled on "cake"; we as Members of Parliament did not know whether "cake" was a slang term. I am hardly a superstar, but even nowadays sometimes when I walk along a street a very young person will run up to me who has seen that bit of television footage—it is shown over and again. What I usually say to them is, "Okay, you thought it was funny, but did it actually put you off taking drugs?" Obviously, the parents of Leah Betts were not particularly pleased at the trivialisation of the matter.
	On cannabis, I say to the hon. Members for Bolton, South-East and for Newport, West, "Forget the classification." I was a Member in 2003 when we voted on the matter. Eleven Labour Members voted against. The current Prime Minister thought that we should change the classification. It is not about the classification; it is about the impression it gave to young people, which was absolutely wrong. Why did we not listen to Marjorie Wallace of SANE, who really does know what she is talking about?
	I am not about to tell the Minister that locking such youngsters up in prison will provide a solution. What my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said was right. I do not understand why our prisons are awash with drugs—perhaps I am being naïve—but they are. I wish the Minister a fair wind in trying to deal with that as part of his strategy. It is a terrible situation.
	The psychotic effect of cannabis is absolutely proven. I wish the Government had listened then to the advice of the International Narcotics Control Board. This week, senior police officers have said that changing the classification was not a good idea. Where were they in 2003 and 2004? Were their words not reported? Also, why was the current Prime Minister not against the reclassification? I understand the point that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East made, but we should think about the impression that it gave. All Members have constituents who come along to their surgeries and tell them about the devastating consequences of cannabis on the lives of young people.

Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Amess: I shall do so—but only briefly—as I have dropped my papers.

Paul Flynn: One of the pressing arguments that persuaded the then Home Secretary to change the classification was evidence from parents of young people who had died of heroin poisoning. They said that their young people had gone through the following journey. They had been told that cannabis is a terribly dangerous drug, but then when they used it they found that they did not have great problems with it. Therefore, they disbelieved the fables they had been told, so they then disbelieved what they thought were fables about heroin. The idea was to make a difference between the classifications of cannabis—which has its dangers, of course—and heroin, which is far more dangerous.

David Amess: I said that I was not going to fall out with the hon. Gentleman, but I must say that his view on cannabis is absolutely wrong.
	Let me conclude by making a plea. Over the last week or so, a Liberal peer insulted Essex when he attacked a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). However, I noticed that yesterday the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) was wearing a T-shirt with the logo "Proud to come from Essex". We in Essex have a wonderful organisation called 2 Smart 4 Drugs; I will send the Minister some details about it. As we all know, the first step towards effective prevention is early education, and that is what it specialises in. It is an award-winning drugs and alcohol community project, organised by Essex police in conjunction with Essex FM. I have attended some of its presentations. This is not money wasted; it gets real results, but—the Minister knows what I am about to say—it needs more money. The organisation is led by Victoria Wilson of Essex police and a wonderful lady called Pam Withrington, whose aunt, Jo Robinson, tragically lost her son as a result of drug misuse. I ask that the Minister, in his very difficult task, look at this project, which has made a big difference in Essex.
	I hope that the House will come to a positive conclusion, because all Members are united in trying to do something about this situation—I will not call it a war—but it is a very tough nut to crack.

John Mann: We may all be united, but there are different points of view on this matter. There may be a vagueness in being united about the fact that we will do something about it, but what politician would say publicly or privately, or would even think to themselves, "Well, we'll do nothing about the issue of drugs, and pretend it isn't there."
	One of the problems with drugs debates in this House—this weakness has hidden some of the successes of the Government's drugs policy—is the use and misuse of statistics. The key weakness in the Government's drugs strategy is not the strategy itself, but the assessment of outcomes and the precise measurements. Let us consider the example of cannabis. Everybody knows, and the research on this will soon come through to show—it is only just emerging—that there has been a huge fall in cannabis use. The cause is pretty obvious to me: it is called the smoking ban. That makes me particularly pleased that I voted for the smoking ban.

Brian Iddon: rose—

John Mann: With respect, I do not think there is time to take interventions.
	People are smoking far less, so people are smoking cannabis far less. I have seen no evidence of any diversion towards people baking cannabis cakes or anything like that. Cannabis use is decreasing. That does not mean that where someone does use cannabis, it is more or less of a problem than it was before.
	The information is there. I am sure that all hon. Members have read my 2002 report to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, in which I described in great detail hydroponics and cannabis, the experience of the Vietnamese ex-pat community in Australia, in Melbourne in particular, and what would happen here when those techniques were used. In essence, people would grow for profit in their houses, using the latest techniques, on an industrial scale. That happened in Australia, because a market existed, and it has happened in the UK. Wherever the new markets in drugs emerge—the most difficult markets will be in chemical concoctions of one kind or another that are created not abroad but here in the UK—the drugs involved will be the new wave that will come into this country. The drugs I am talking about are already here, but their use will grow. We can see all this from the evidence of what has happened elsewhere.
	However, monitoring outcomes would give the Government some good news. They would be able to declare, as they will at some stage, that cannabis use has declined. More importantly, analysis of school exclusions in respect of drugs and alcohol demonstrates absolutely that drugs and alcohol are not a major problem in schools. There is no evidence of such a problem; minor numbers are being disciplined. If my schoolkids are asked, they say, "A few teachers come in the worse for wear for alcohol, but do you think we would be stupid enough to buy or use drink or drugs in school? We know where to get it outside if we want it."
	Let us examine one of the great myths, because the Government have the statistics to quantify things. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) is wrong about overdose deaths. On the basis of the classifications used by coroners' courts, the number of deaths from heroin overdose in this country is falling. Nowhere is that more the case than in my constituency, where the fall has been huge. In 2002, 11 of my constituents died because of heroin, but only two have done so in the past four years. The matter is quantifiably provable.
	As for accident and emergency admissions, I recommend that every hon. Member ask their local hospital whether the drugs strategy is working in their area and monitor the situation. The figures on accident and emergency admissions for an overdose of injectable drugs give a clear trend line. In my area, a fourfold reduction has taken place, which means that the drugs strategy, particularly with regard to heroin, is working there. Strangely, the biggest reduction in Britain in the number of house burglaries has occurred in my area—and I suggest that there is a correlation. In monitoring those outcomes, the Government should be pulling those correlations together. I do not care who takes the credit—the police, the Government, the health service or charities. Everyone can have some credit.
	If anyone asks me what has happened about drugs in my constituency, I can tell them. If they had walked down Bridge street in Worksop five years ago, they would not have got five yards without being accosted by a young person on heroin. Now, although there are one or two problems with the Tory council, lots of cars are being parked illegally, the Tory leader drove illegally the wrong way when he made his fleeting visit, and the police are failing to tackle cyclists, someone walking down Bridge street would struggle to find a drug addict. That is what is happening in the real world, so quantifiable proof exists: I recommend cost-benefit analysis.
	The other thing that I strongly recommend to the Government—this concurs with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) said—is to examine causation. My analysis of my constituents who have been on heroin is that the vast majority have now come off it since my heroin inquiry in 2002. By far and away the key factor in young people getting involved with drugs is major trauma. That can be identified in different ways. For example, it might be a major change in economic circumstances, but it is more likely to be the death of a parent, often a father—my amateur research base tells me that—or a messy divorce, a split in the family situation, abuse or attacks. Those are by far and away the factors that lead young people into drug addiction. Such things can be identified. It is now far more acceptable to talk about things such as child abuse within a family in society and societal organisations than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Such things can be addressed, but we do not pull the two issues together. That is where the improvement to the Government's strategy can be tweaked in a big way. We can use the data on outcomes, but we must put them together more cleverly. We must examine causation, and in particular, the role of major trauma among children and young people in leading to addiction.
	We know what the Government's drugs strategy is, and we know that not all Labour Members have agreed with it. I generally do agree with it, because it generally works. We know what the Conservative policy is, because it has been outlined recently: before, everyone would have been put into residential rehabilitation, but now they will be put into secure residential rehabilitation. The proposal has not yet been costed, although my costings of it show that it would be quite expensive, and the definition of "secure" has been left a little vague. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) did not outline it further. I am sure that he and his colleagues will take the opportunity to explain about the 280,000 secure residential places, or however many the number is; a figure has not yet emerged. The Conservatives' recovery policy has also been clearly outlined, even though their leader repeatedly and consistently took totally the opposite approach—his was more in line with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West; it could have been the same speech. The Tory leader is out of synch, but I am sure that he is accommodating himself to the current policy and learning it. There will be some interesting tensions there.
	We know, from a speech made by Fergus Ewing today, that the Scottish National party has stolen lock, stock and barrel the Tory party policy of recovery and abstinence. We know that Mr. Souter, who has helped the SNP in various ways, has inspired its new policy in his recent meetings with the party. At last the SNP has a policy! It is identical to the Conservative party's policy, which will make for some interesting debates.
	We still do not know what the Liberal Democrat policy is—individuals have different views, not least on cannabis—but we do know about the proposal by its new leader. His one statement on the matter was made on 21 December 2002 on the European Parliament proposal for a recommendation—B5 0541 is the paper—in which he makes it clear that he is in favour of the legalisation of drugs. We are beginning to see a policy emerge; it is in process. I hope that the Liberals will give us more of an opportunity in the near future to let us know—

Tom Brake: I want to inform the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) has made it very clear—much more recently than the example given by the hon. Gentleman—that he is opposed to the legalisation of skunk, for example. Would the hon. Gentleman like to withdraw his comments?

John Mann: The would-be Home Secretary from the Liberals has not commented on drugs, or anything else, since the change in party leadership. We look forward to the Liberals having policy on this matter; that would contribute to the debate.

Angela Watkinson: In the few minutes remaining, I am pleased to contribute to the debate. One of the first things I did when I was elected to this place, as a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, was take part in an investigation of drugs policy entitled "The Government's drugs policy: is it working?" I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), but I agree that the policy was not, and still is not, working. I do not think that any of us would underestimate the enormity of the problem, or the task of dealing with it.
	Everybody here has the good will to acknowledge that there is a problem, and to try to do something about it. Of course, opinions on how to deal with it are varied. During its investigation, the Committee took evidence from across the opinion spectrum. We took evidence from the legalisation lobby—from people who would make all drugs freely available and supplied by the Government. At the other end of the spectrum, we heard some heartbreaking stories from parents who had lost children to a drug habit. My view, then and now, is that there is an imbalance in drugs policy. It focuses too heavily on harm reduction and the provision of rehabilitation, important though that is, and not enough on drug prevention. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) said how important it is to warn very young children about the dangers of drugs. The age at which that needs to be tackled is, sadly, getting younger and younger.
	I was unable to agree with the outcome of the investigation, and I was the only person on a cross-party Committee to do so. I tabled about 80 amendments, all of which were blown out of the water. I thought that I was right then, and I still think so now.
	Today's announcement—or leak—from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs was disappointing to me. I believe that the message that reclassification would send out to young people—many of whom believe that taking such drugs is not only legal but harmless, and a purely social occupation from which no harm will come—is very important. We all know, not least from the evidence heard by the Committee and that which we have seen since, that mental health professionals are extremely worried about the increase in psychotic illnesses, depression and so on that arise from cannabis use. If it transpires that the council advises that cannabis should not be reclassified, I hope that the Home Secretary will think long and hard about the evidence that comes from other quarters before she makes her decision.
	The hon. Member for Newport, West thought that reclassification was of no importance. I fundamentally disagree with him. The message given to young people is very important. No young person should be in any doubt about the dangers that can flow from the use of illegal drugs. We have to start with cannabis, which is probably the most easily available. Most drug dealers now are poly-drug dealers. If young people buy cannabis, the range of harder, more harmful drugs is readily available to them. The temptation to try other drugs, which can lead to serious habits from which there is often no return, is an important message that would come from any reclassification.
	Several hon. Members have referred to the availability of drugs in prisons. The challenge of ridding prisons of drugs is enormous, but we have to take every action we can to help people with drug habits who have been given custodial sentences because of acquisitive crime, because they will not get rid of their habits if drugs are easily available in prison. People who are given custodial sentences for other reasons, and do not have a drug habit, often acquire a habit while they are in prison, and add to the body of people who require rehabilitation treatment.
	I want to make some brief comments on the Government website Frank. I looked at it yesterday and today and it provides a helpful A to Z of drugs, including yaba, zero and isobutyl nitrate. I learned more about drugs from looking at Frank than I would ever have found out in any other way. It has videos about parties where drugs are being taken, jokey commentaries, and comic cartoons about replacement brains. I do not think that that website will deter a single young person from taking illegal drugs. It does not present the subject in anything near a serious enough way. I am dismayed to notice that I have run out of time. I had so much to say— [ Interruption. ] The Minister tells me I can have a little longer; that is very kind.
	Frank also advertises free information on drugs 24/7, and tells lots of frank stories. We need to give young people serious warnings about what they are doing to their future, their education, their employment prospects and their families, friends, colleagues and neighbours. People do not take drugs in isolation. They affect all the other people around them. Nowhere on the site could I see a simple message such as, "Don't do it. It's illegal and it will harm you." We need to get down to plain simple language rather than wrapping it up in jokey cartoony videos that do not do what the site is intended to do.

Vernon Coaker: I thank all hon. Members for the quality of the debate. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) was very complimentary, which was nice of him. The debate shows some of the difficulty in reaching a drug strategy that commands general support. With drugs charities, drug misusers, others Members of Parliament, parliamentary groups and all sorts of individuals, I have tried to build consensus around the new drugs strategy. We have tried to get away from the false debate about whether we should crack down hard on dealers and those who bring misery to our communities—whether we are therefore tough on drugs—or whether we should support families, provide better treatment and ensure that the outcomes of treatment are more effective, to avoid the sorts of horror that have been described, which is what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) was talking about.
	I was disappointed by the comments made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire), which is unusual for me. The new strategy was not met with derision, because we had tried to reach that consensus. That does not mean that every person in the country and every group would support it wholeheartedly. One or two would deride it, because they want drugs to be legalised or completely decriminalised. The Government attempted to ensure that we had a radical policy that moved forward, and moved away from the false choice between tough enforcement and just treatment. We tried to bring those together. Our approach was not met with derision, with due respect to the hon. Gentleman, but with general support from the vast majority of people, simply because it moved away from that choice.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) and for Bolton, South-East, who have in the past been very critical, have recognised the shift in our policy. I cannot answer all the points that have been made in the few minutes I have left, but it is essential that we enforce the law against those who deal in misery in our communities by dealing drugs. Every person in this House will accept that. The asset recovery panels are significantly different, because they allow us to take action on arrest rather than on conviction. They will enable us to take the action that people want against those in our communities who deal in drugs.
	The key is to make drug treatment more effective. Some hon. Members picked up on that point. If the hon. Member for Hornchurch and others read page 28 of the drug strategy, they will see that it mentions abstinence, and states that we need a menu of options, and that a person's needs will be a matter for a clinical decision, made by a doctor, as to what is appropriate for them. For some people that will be methadone—and I agree that we should not just abandon people on methadone. For others it will be residential treatment, but it is a clinical decision based on the person's individual needs that will make the treatment effective, not some grand statement that everybody should go into abstinence straight away or that everybody should be on methadone. It is about ensuring that there is appropriate treatment for the individual.
	I apologise to hon. Members for not answering all their questions specifically. Education is obviously important, and we will wait for the ACMD review of cannabis. I agree with my hon. Friends that it is important to tackle causation, and I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate.
	 It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, the motion lapsed without Question put, pursuant to the Temporary Standing Order.

April Adjournment

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Ms Diana R. Johnson.]

David Wright: I appreciate your calling me so early in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall return home to Telford and search out the remaining Easter eggs in my cupboard, and send them down to you in the following week.
	I should like to raise four issues that are important for the House to hear about before we adjourn for the recess.

Simon Burns: I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman is going to speak about is very important. Given that, no doubt he will wish to stay for the winding-up speeches, which finish at 6 o'clock, so he may be a bit delayed in getting back to his constituency.

David Wright: Of course I will be here for the winding-up speeches. I will then return to Telford and hunt out those Easter eggs for you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and return with them in two weeks' time if I have not already demolished them.
	The first of the four issues that I wish to bring to the House's attention is audio description on television. Yesterday, I met Caroline Ellis of the Royal National Institute of Blind People to discuss how we can ensure that digital television is fully accessible to people with sight problems and to examine some of the latest technology. Television plays a pivotal role in the lives of people with sight problems. Some 73 per cent.—nearly three in four—spend five hours or more a week watching television. It is a major source of information, news and entertainment, and 86 per cent. of people with sight problems would watch more television if more programmes were accessible.
	With that in mind, the RNIB is encouraging more of the 2 million blind and partially sighted people in the UK, including about 3,000 in my constituency, to watch TV by switching on a free existing service called audio description. Many of the nation's favourite TV moments have never been fully enjoyed by blind and partially sighted people. Relying on the soundtrack means that they cannot follow what is going on.
	I was shown a clip of a programme yesterday—it was "Doctor Who", which is one of my favourites and has a new series starting on Saturday. If I closed my eyes or looked away from the screen, I could not tell what was going on. One advantage of audio description is that in addition to the speech in the programme, there is commentary that fits in between the dialogue and describes the body language, expressions and movements of people on the screen. It makes the story clear through sound and is a fantastic innovation.
	As well as giving people with sight problems access to the nation's favourite entertainment and drama programmes, audio description stops people feeling isolated and excluded, because they can discuss programmes with family and friends who are watching at the same time. At the moment, about 13 per cent. of programmes on digital TV have audio description, which is not nearly enough. Many of those programmes are repeats on channels such as The History Channel. It is still worth while tuning in, but we need to ensure that more programmes have audio description.
	The service can be accessed on Sky, Virgin Media and some freeview boxes and integrated digital TVs. People can call an audio description hotline to get help, and I believe that the service brings a clear benefit to those with sight problems. The downside, as those with digital TVs will know, is that one has to navigate one's way through visual menus on the screen to select programmes to watch, which is difficult and frustrating for people who are blind or partially sighted. Audio description may be available on a programme, but they cannot access it because the digital menu is visual in nature. We need to take action on that so that people who are blind or partially sighted can navigate around the screen and secure access to the new services. We cannot have a large proportion of our population, including, as I have said, about 3,000 people in Telford alone, excluded from the service, given that in future digital television will be the only option.
	Digital switchover will come to the Central ITV region from 2011. I know that there will be a help scheme to ensure that households that have a disabled person or an elderly person over 75 in them, including those registered blind or partially sighted, can convert to digital TV on one set. Eligible people who are partially sighted or blind could do with securing a quality set-top box with audio description and easy-to-use remote controls, so that the TV guide on the screen tells them what programmes they are selecting and what is coming on next.
	The Government have not yet committed to ensuring that providers put audio description support into set-top boxes. It is important that they do so soon, so that all digital services have a talking menu, and a talking recording menu if there is a hard drive on the box. It would be good if the Government could commit to that initiative, which I am sure will secure cross-party support. It is important to thousands of people in constituencies across the country, and I would like to see it delivered as soon as possible.
	The second issue that the House needs to be made aware of before what I see from the annunciator is the April Adjournment, rather than the Easter Adjournment, is post offices. This week, we had the long awaited announcement about post office closures in Telford. I think that it is fair to say that the impact on the constituency was not as great as many had predicted. It had been suggested that at least four post offices would close in Telford, but in fact just one, at Randlay, has been named for possible closure. Ten others will remain intact. The main problem with Randlay post office is that it is very close to Telford town centre and a short bus ride from a Crown post office less than a mile away. I have spoken to the postmaster at Randlay, visited the post office there and written to every resident in the community. Throughout the six-week consultation period, I will help local people to make the case for the post office to stay open.
	Post Office closures are an emotive subject, but we need to examine the facts if we are to proceed logically. At present, we as taxpayers subsidise the national network to the tune of £3.5 million a week. That level of subsidy is clearly unsustainable, and some offices will have to close across the UK. That money could be invested in schools, hospitals or local policing. Additionally, our shopping habits are changing and we are increasingly using the internet, the telephone and other outlets to purchase services and things we used to buy at the post office. New technology and the increasing preference for direct payments and online services have, and will continue to have, a significant effect on how post offices provide services to their customers.
	We should not forget that locally, we have had some real successes in relation to post offices in recent years. I particularly want to thank the Co-op for its work to ensure that many post offices in Telford stay open. Three post offices have moved into Co-op stores: that has been extremely successful, and I am sure that similar moves have been successful elsewhere across the country. In Oakengates, Trench and Dawley the post office service is provided in the Co-op, where the environment is much better than that in the old offices. Post office services will remain at those three sites, and we will also be keeping services at Horsehay, Ironbridge, Brookside, Madely, Sutton Hill, Overdale and Telford town centre.
	Some people have suggested that I voted in this House for the closure of post offices. That is absolute nonsense, and a display of the worst kind of political opportunism. The Opposition motion that we debated would merely have postponed the consultation exercise while options such as having local councils taking over post office services were examined.
	In that debate, the Opposition made it clear that they would provide no new resources for post offices, and they were not even able to commit to maintaining the existing Government subsidy over the next decade. Also, I have seen no evidence that the Conservative-run Telford and Wrekin council will step in to save post office branches in Telford. If it were going to do so, it should give us the details of the plans and the precise amount of the council tax increase that would have to be imposed.

John Randall: Does the post office that the hon. Gentleman is trying to save make a profit?

David Wright: I am meeting the postmaster of that office next Tuesday to look at the books. If it does make a profit, we will make the case that it should stay open and I shall work with local residents to that end.
	I recognise that post offices provide a critical resource for many communities, and we must make sure that the network is both viable and sustainable. Sustainability is the crucial element: without funding from this Labour Government, thousands more branches would have been under threat and there would have been thousands more closures.
	Of course, thousands of post offices closed under the previous Conservative Government, and as far as I am aware there was no compensation for sub-postmasters then. At least, they have received some compensation in recent years, and there has been a proper national debate about how we should move forward in respect of post offices. The Opposition campaign to keep open every post office branch in the country is a sham.
	The third issue I want to raise is Ironbridge, which is a world heritage site. I am chairman of the all-party world heritage sites group, and I am very proud to have in my constituency the Ironbridge gorge, which was inscribed in the UNESCO world heritage site list in 1986. The inscription relates the area's role in the birth of the industrial revolution, and even people who have not visited will know the iconic image of the iron bridge over the River Severn.
	The world heritage site is also a living community, with a resident population of about 4,000. They run businesses and live in the area, and there are also various museums along the gorge. The gorge itself attracts about 750,000 visitors a year, and about 300,000 pay to visit one or more of the 10 museum sites. The iron bridge was completed in 1779. As a symbol of the industrial revolution, it is recognised around the world. It is owned by the local council, under the guardianship of English Heritage.
	The gorge is one of the UK's most important visitor attractions. Through various sources, the nation has spent tens of millions of pounds of public money over the years to make sure that it acts as a tourist magnet and an engine for the local economy. The gorge is therefore incredibly important, but it is under threat from land instability caused by a combination of natural geology, past mining activity and the fact that its hillsides have been loaded with tipped waste, buildings and infrastructure.
	That instability is exacerbated by the flooding on the River Severn that happens every two or three years. A flood barrier has been established for the Wharfage, but the floods still cause significant erosion along the gorge. Generally, the land movement is quite gradual, but the times when it has been great and fairly catastrophic have resulted in the partial blockage of the river and caused the destruction of buildings and property. There is always the possibility that a blockage of the river could cause major flooding and damage, both upstream and downstream. Moreover, life and property could be put at risk if the clearing of that blockage caused a rapid release of water.
	A lot of work has been done in the gorge, much of it in recent times. Studies of the scale and extent of the flooding problem have been carried out, and they have identified the areas at greatest risk. Ground investigations have been undertaken by the council and land movement is being carefully monitored. The local council and the Government have acted in a partnership to invest in stabilisation, at Jiggers bank in 2002 and at the Lloyds phase 1 in 2007.
	Residents are aware of the problem. An information pack has been made available so that they can report incidents of land instability or any problems that they might encounter on their property. There is also an emergency plan covering the worst-case scenarios of what might happen in the gorge, but there is a need for further investment to ensure that the environment is stabilised.
	The local council, in partnership with the Government, has undertaken a cost-benefit analysis, and it is estimated that we need to spend about £86 million to ensure that the gorge is safe in the long term. If we delay, the cost may rise to more than £100 million—an enormous amount of money, and one that the local authority on its own clearly cannot come up with. I am therefore working with the local council to try to lobby Ministers to ensure that we get a fair share of resources so that the required works can be carried out.
	I shall set out a list of the works that need to be done. We need to complete the stabilisation of the Lloyds and Lloyds Head on opposite sides of the River Severn; we need to stabilise the hillside and rebuild the road between Jackfield tile museum and Maws craft centre; and we need to complete the ground investigations in central Ironbridge, reconstruct the riverside wall along the Wharfage, stabilise Lloyds Coppice and carry out work to stabilise the Lloyds phase 3.
	That is a significant amount of work. The key issue is that, when a national Government put a site forward for world heritage site status, they accept that the UNESCO charter requires them, as the state party, to ensure that the site is preserved for future generations. It is crucial that we invest in the Ironbridge gorge. It is a significant asset for the nation, and an iconic site that ranks alongside all the other incredible world heritage sites around the globe. I hope that Ministers will look closely at the partnership work being undertaken to secure the gorge's long-term future as a national asset.
	Finally, I want to say something about the importance of manufacturing for the west midlands. I am delighted that Advantage West Midlands has published its manufacturing support strategy for the next three years. It is an excellent document and it outlines how important manufacturing is for the area. Manufacturing is the largest wealth generator of the west midlands sector, accounting for about 27 per cent. of the regional gross value added—23 per cent. directly and an estimated further 4 per cent. from its supply chains.
	During the early 1980s, when I left school—some Opposition Members will find that comment somewhat surprising—unemployment in Telford was running at just under 10 per cent. I am very proud to say that we have ensured that unemployment has come down over the past few years—it is now running at about 3 per cent.—but to give credit where it is due, one of the most important initiatives in Telford was undertaken by a partnership between a Conservative Government and a Labour council: the designation of the enterprise zone. That extremely important initiative secured cross-party support at the time, and it did a lot for Telford. We also secured the connection to the motorway network, with the opening of the M54.
	Those two decisions in the 1980s were very important for Telford, and they were taken in the long-term interests of the town. I should like to thank the politicians who were involved for making those decisions, because they ensured that, in the long term, we were able to grow the manufacturing sector in Telford and draw new companies into Telford. In fact, we were a focal point for Japanese investment for many years. Indeed, we still have a large number of Japanese companies, such as Ricoh and Maxell, in the town, providing thousands of jobs.
	We now need to continue to support the manufacturing sector in the region. Such manufacturing will be connected particularly to car manufacture and engineering, but increasingly, in Telford, we are looking at high-tech jobs and innovation. That is why I very much welcome the commitment in the recently published document to the technology corridor between Wolverhampton and Telford. It is crucial that we ensure that we have jobs growth along that M54 corridor and that organisations, such as the university of Wolverhampton, are party to supporting manufacturing, so that we can grow new technology and innovation business and build the skills base in Telford.
	Supporting the concept of the city region—the idea is to connect some of the main areas across the central spine of the west midlands into a city region structure—will be crucial. Some clarion voices locally in Telford have suggested that we should not get involved in the city region. In my view, that would be a complete disaster. In the longer term, resources to support manufacturing, the skills sector and training will be decided by organisations such as the city region.
	I fully support the Conservative council's decision to continue to subscribe to the city region—a policy that was started by the Labour council before last year's elections and continued by the Conservative council. I very much welcome that, and I urge the council to continue to ignore some of the clarion voices and the doom merchants who suggest that we should withdraw from the city region. It is important that we invest in it and that our skills and manufacturing strategy develops on a regional basis. On that note, I will go off in search of Easter eggs.

Simon Hughes: A belated happy Easter to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, from me, too.
	I start with a word about the date of the Adjournment and the recess. Unusually, this year, the nation is slightly confused by these things, because the good old western Christian Church, which fixes its Easter according to certain risings of the sun, I think, and the moon, has had its earliest Easter for about 80 or 90 years—I gather that it will not be as early again for another 80 or 90 years. This year, Easter was on 23 March, and technically, it could only have been one day earlier than that. Obviously, it almost coincided with the first day of spring this year. I notice just in passing that, in 2011, it will be on 24 April, which must be pretty well the latest date that it can ever be, too.
	I have no objection to the fact that Easter moves around—it adds a bit of variety and interest in an otherwise over-routine world—but there is an issue that affects our conducting business well. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), who helps me on House matters and directly shadows the Deputy Leader of the House, would have been here, except that he is not here, by permission, for a very good reason: his children are on their school holidays, and he and his wife have decided to take their children, who are in London today as opposed to Scotland, to see "The Lord of the Rings". There is an issue for Members and children with regard to the coincidence of our sitting times with school holidays. That is not an easy issue to resolve. Clearly, there should be a break at Christmas, at or around Easter and in the summer, but when we plan our recesses, I would be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House were to ask her officials to try to make our terms coincide with the bulk of school term times and holidays around the country. We are catering for four countries, which have different education systems.
	When I asked my hon. Friend to give me an idea of the school holidays in Scotland, he told me that some Easter holidays—for example, in Edinburgh and Aberdeenshire—started on 21 March and run until 7 April. The Glasgow ones do not start until 7 April and run until 18 April. The Dundee ones started on 31 March and run until 11 April. When I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) what the position was in Wales, he pointed out that there is a common view that the holidays run from 21 March to 7 April, but the summer holidays vary. Of course, some Scottish summer holidays start as early as the end of June and run until the middle of August. Obviously, this would need the consensus of the House, but I would be grateful if the Leader of the House were to get officials to draw up a matrix of school holiday plans—they vary, but they can generally be foreshadowed—to try to ensure that our term times match, as far as possible, school term times and holidays.
	If we are trying to make the House family-friendly—colleagues have school-age children—we need to ensure, as far as possible, that our term times and holidays coincide with the maximum number of school term times and holidays. I think that that is a reasonable request, and it has been made by colleagues over the years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) has made it often, and he was concerned about the issue when he had young children, as many colleagues have. I hope that we can plan to ensure that we do our job for our families as well as for our constituents.

Simon Burns: I find the hon. Gentleman's comments over the past few minutes just bizarre. I can only put them down to the fact that he does not have schoolchildren. To give credit to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett) and the late Robin Cook, that is precisely what they did. They dovetailed our term times and recesses with the school holidays, by and large, for England and Wales. Usually, it has worked extremely well. There is a problem with Scotland. There always will be a problem with Scotland, because the term times and summer holidays there are completely out of sync with the rest of the UK. It is a little churlish to give the impression that nothing has been done, when—I hate to admit it—the Government have made our hours with regard to school holidays extremely family-friendly.

Simon Hughes: Neither was I being churlish, nor did I say or imply that nothing had been done. Indeed, I indicated that the Government have tried to deal with the issue, but the situation could be even better. For example, a week's difference now would have given more people a coincident school holiday and break here. It certainly needs to be addressed for colleagues from Scotland, for whom school holidays run throughout July as well as the bulk of August. Some of us have argued at length over many years that we should not have a three-month summer holiday. It is nonsense that we should break for so long. If we had a shorter summer holiday, one of the problems could be more easily addressed.

John Randall: As a parent of three children who are still at school, I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he not realise that hundreds of our constituents do not have the luxury of recesses? They have to pick their holidays. Some teachers have different school holidays from their children, if their children's school is in a different local authority area. We are actually in quite a privileged position.

Simon Hughes: Of course, I am not pretending that the issue does not affect other people. If we in this country are moving towards having five weeks' annual holiday, one would hope that that holiday could always be taken. Normally, families can, by and large, choose when they take their holidays, although teachers cannot. There are other people, too, whose holidays are inflicted on them, as it were, and who must take their holiday at times entirely connected with their profession. I have made my point. This is not a self-interested question; I just request that the issue be considered in the light of continuing requests from colleagues who think that we can do better. We have made progress, but we can do better still.
	Let me turn to matters that do not affect the House as directly. I want to mention local issues, as the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) did. There are three local issues on my list, one of which—post offices—is on everybody's local list. Yesterday was the closing date for responses to the consultation on post offices across Greater London. As I said in Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Question Time earlier today, eight closures are proposed in my borough, four of which are in my constituency, and I have made representations. It is also proposed that a Crown post office be changed to a non-Crown post office and moved from an established Crown post office site on Borough high street to an as yet unopened—and, I think, entirely unbuilt—Costcutter store. That is taking trust a bit too far; it is cost-cutting with a vengeance. We might base our objection to the proposal on the fact that we do not believe that the building will be there until we see it, which might be a good reason for objecting.
	I want to make two points on the subject that partly tie in with an earlier interchange. I believe that three of the four post offices for which closure is proposed in my patch are now profit-making. They include the one at Dockhead on the riverside in Bermondsey, where there is family commitment and where the postmistress is extremely keen to continue, and the one on Ilderton road, which is on the Bermondsey-Lewisham border near Millwall football ground. A family have been running that post office since 1979, and they are keen to continue. There is a third on Maddock way, which is on the Brandon estate, near the Southwark-Lambeth border. It probably was not profit-making, but it has a new postmistress who believes that she has just turned the business around. She wants to stay there, because she believes that the business is viable. The fourth one in East street has not been profit-making, and the owner has been trying to get out of the business for some time, but the Post Office is resisting.
	The question whether a post office is profit-making should be a consideration. Post Office Ltd should be willing to tell Members of Parliament, with the agreement of the postmaster or postmistress, what an office's commercial viability is—it is far too secretive about such things. It should share all the information that is relevant to a post office, with the agreement of the postmaster or postmistress. If it did that, a business case could be made for many post offices, although not necessarily as free-standing offices—they might be linked to a grocery or other store on the premises or nearby. Now that the London post office consultation information has been submitted—I submitted mine in full yesterday, as did colleagues—I hope that we can have a real dialogue with the Post Office, rather than a dialogue of the deaf or a dialogue of non-communication. We want information, and I hope that it will be forthcoming.
	My second proposal, which I should like to make through the Deputy Leader of the House to her colleagues in the relevant Department and to the Post Office, is that we consider in every case the effect on the immediate business community. There can be devastating effects on parades of shops and in areas where there is deprivation. We need to consider that. The local authority is in many cases willing to be helpful, and the Post Office must take that into account.
	Turning to my second local issue, I gather that a decision has been made, although nothing has been made public yet, about the world-famous poisons unit at the Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust. That is the unit to which people refer poisons, or potential poisons from all over the world for analysis and assessment, both in the context of crime and in the context of general medical treatment. It is to have its funding withdrawn, which is not a central Government matter, but a matter devolved to the Department of Health. The unit is well-established, and has an excellent national and international reputation. I hope that the final word has not been said on whether the money will be withdrawn, and I hope that the unit can remain in place in view of the quality of the service. I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to help me to find out what is going on, so that we can get some information and debate the subject in the open rather than behind closed doors. I hope that we can put, and win, the case for the unit to stay open.
	Thirdly, I am pleased to say that my local authority, Southwark council, and the private construction company Berkeley Homes have at last come to an agreement about the site called Potters Fields, which many hon. Members will know. It is on the right when one comes over Tower bridge from the north, next to London City Hall. It has been a derelict car park for many years, and is next to a very nice park. Southwark council and Berkeley Homes, both of which own part of the site, have at last come to an agreement to go back to the drawing board and together plan a new design for a cultural centre worthy of a landmark world heritage site. We have just heard a speech about an eminent landmark world heritage site in Shropshire that I know and admire. The design will replace the horrible eight pillars—a more vulgar name has been given to them—in the design that currently has planning permission. I hope that the Government and the new Mayor of London, whoever that will be, will support the new agreement, and that it will provide something to which the community can sign up, instead of the horrible monstrosity that we were to have inflicted on us, and which the community almost universally opposed.
	I have a couple of final points to make, as other colleagues have many issues to put on the agenda. I wish to raise an issue that straddles constituency and national business, which has been raised by many colleagues on both sides of the House and by colleagues down the Corridor in the other place. My constituent Mehdi Kazemi, a 19-year-old Iranian, is at this minute in detention in the Netherlands. He came to the United Kingdom to study and was led to believe that if he went back to Iran he could be in severe trouble, or worse, because it had been announced publicly that he had had a gay relationship in Iran. I am not sure of all the historical facts, and it is not appropriate to share all of them now, but he makes the case that a former partner of his has been executed on the basis of his sexuality and sexual behaviour in Iran.
	It is unarguable that the Iranian regime behaves in that way to gay people, as well as to other categories of people, including women and political dissenters. The request being made to the UK Government is that they review the policy in relation to sending people back to places such as Iran and, still, Zimbabwe and Saudi Arabia, when it is obvious that because of Government policy particular people are at particular risk. It is unacceptable that there is a policy under which people are expected to go back to certain countries of the world under certain regimes at certain times and to believe that they will be safe, and I hope it will be reviewed.
	In the case that I mentioned, the Home Secretary, to her credit, said to me at the beginning, when I requested a stay after the initial hearing, that the Home Office would look at the case again. My constituent fled to mainland Europe, thinking that that might be a safer place, but if the Dutch authorities, as I expect, send him back to the UK, I am sure the Home Secretary will do that job properly. However, that job would be much easier if there were a general moratorium on deportations in such cases, where the vulnerability is established without argument and where people would be at huge risk if they were sent home.
	My final request is topical. This is our last break before the May elections in London, much of England and Wales. May we bear in mind two things that are not working at all well?

Shona McIsaac: The Lib Dems.

Simon Hughes: The Lib Dems are working, often very well, but I am well used to the hon. Lady's partisan comments.
	First, on electoral registration and the avoidance of electoral fraud, we still believe that there is huge under-registration across the country and in London in particular. I know that the Leader of the House is exercised by that. The figures are probably 10 per cent. across England and 20 per cent. in London. There cannot be free and fair elections if so many people are not registered to vote.
	The Slough case the other day, where the judge was hugely critical of the system after the conviction of a Conservative councillor in Slough for electoral fraud and his disqualification, reminded the House, I hope, that we must have a system of individual registration—not registration by household—so that people can be individually checked. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House understands the importance of that. We need to maximise turnout and participation and minimise fraud. We are not there yet; it is work in progress.
	Linked to that, we still have a nonsense system for counting people, especially in urban areas where there is a big turnover of population, and in other parts of the country as well, where the census and other ways of counting population are very much behind the reality. The director—I think that is her title—of the Office for National Statistics, the new boss of the ONS, has made it clear that the system is not sufficiently robust or up to date. The Greater London assembly carried out a survey which suggests that in a borough such as Southwark we probably underestimate our population in official figures by between 5,000 and 10,000.
	When population figures are wrong, there is a knock-on effect on the local government settlement. Ministers accept that, but they say that they cannot do anything about the settlement that has just come into effect. We believe that boroughs get less support than they ought to, because the assessed population is lower than it should be. If we are to have a fair system for distributing funds around the country, we need a fair and up-to-date system for assessing how many people live in an area—how many adults, how many children and how many retired people—so that we have up-to-date figures.
	My suggestion, which I have made before, is that every year we have, effectively, a census day combined with electoral registration day on a date that people can remember—say, 1 March, with a countdown throughout February that can be tied in with publicity—and that we use those figures not just for electoral registration, but as the latest best estimate on a rolling census basis. A big census would take place every 10 years; another census would take place on a five-yearly basis; and the annual figures would be fed in to update our population count. That would not disadvantage anybody. I hope that it would advantage everybody in Government and local government and be accepted as a good idea.
	We welcome the recess Adjournment debate, whether it is the Easter, the April or the spring Adjournment. It is right that we should have a short break at this time of year, and I do not think that anyone opposes it. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will pick up the issues that colleagues and I put on her agenda and pass them on to the right places for answers by the time we get back.

Ian Gibson: I welcome occasions such as this, when we can raise issues that are important to our constituents. These debates are also useful for getting off our chest something that has been eating away at us for a long time. I intend to do both, and I hope to subtly link them together.
	I draw the attention of the House to a 1920 Cabinet memo in which a prominent politician wrote about the occupation of Iraq, which was then Mesopotamia. He described it as
	"a profuse and futile expenditure of taxpayers' money",
	and he went on to say that
	"we cannot go on sprawled out over those vast regions at ruinous expense and ever-increasing military risk".
	When I saw that, I thought it was some Marxist speaking, but it turned out to be Winston Churchill in a Cabinet memo. That encouraged me to penetrate  Hansard further to see what the debates were like on the subject of Iraq in those far-off days, long before our time. I wish I had been alive and had participated in them, because they were much livelier. Members in all parts of the House were involved in discussing the issues. For example, we can see that Lloyd George's Government and all his senior Ministers were involved in various debates over four years or more. The senior members were Curzon, Churchill, Chamberlain, Milner, Montagu, Bonar Law and the Prime Minister himself, Lloyd George—not a bad line up for a premier division team. One can imagine how heavily focused those debates would have been on the subject of the invasion.
	I think that those debates were more entertaining and more interesting because they discussed the costs of the new territorial acquisition. Discussions took place in both Chambers and Army and Air Force estimates were looked at in open debate over several sittings. In those days, the essential feature of debates was that they occurred before the decisions had been made. They did not ratify something in an earlier estimate that led to spending; there was genuine discussion of how much should be invested in a particular year and in a particular foreign field. It was interesting.
	Looking at our behaviour over the past few years, we see that there has not been complete lack of scrutiny—of course not; it happened elsewhere, in Select Committees and so on—but the financial cost has been pushed aside. It is not irrelevant to discuss that too. I tried to raise it the other night in a serious debate on the need for an inquiry and was told, quite sharply, that it was irrelevant. I do not think that it is entirely irrelevant, and I shall try to explain why.
	It seems to me that people feel guilty about talking a lot about Iraq because we are letting the side and the soldiers down. I feel that, and I am sure that everybody round here does too, but I do not feel at all guilty about raising this subject. When I go back to Norwich, I get it all the time when I talk to constituents and hear that the pensioners cannot heat their homes. A few will write in—not a massive number—and there are always a few who come to see me. I always say, "Well, we can't cost up everything." Their answer, which I am sure all hon. Members have received, is, "You don't have any trouble finding money for Iraq and Afghanistan." I see heads nodding. People make a human response. Perhaps they do not understand the detail of it all—I do not think that I do, either—but I understand that kind of response.
	I carried out some research with an old colleague of mine—a professor at the university of East Anglia—on the cost of the war to the British Government, which is about £9.9 billion at the minute. That is a minimum estimate, as it takes into account only operational capital expenditure, rather than indirect costs such as higher oil prices, loss of investor confidence and the possibility of a global recession—all the things in which the war has probably been a factor. I am not saying that it has been a major or a minor factor, but expenditure on the war has been a factor in such events across the world.
	A book by Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize winning economist, has just been published. I know that economists do not always agree with each other, but winning the Nobel prize is not bad; it is recognition by one's peers. He claims that the war in Iraq alone will end up costing the UK more than £20 billion. His book is called "The Three Trillion Dollar War". It is very significant and well worth a read in the next few weeks when people have the time to do that.
	I want to make a contrast with the attitude of my constituents when they see the money being shovelled into that enterprise, be it good or bad as far as individuals and their parties are concerned. There is a local NHS walk-in centre on my patch at a place called Dussindale in Thorpe St. Andrew. Set up by the Government early on, it has had £531,000 taken from it. At the same time and over the same period, we have put in £3,297 million to service the work in Iraq and Afghanistan. That funding seems to have no end, as we heard this week with the continuation of the events in Basra and so on. We do not know where this will end up. Contrasting those things in the minds of the constituents whom we all serve, we can understand why there is a little feeling of unease about how well we perform in making financial assessments. The walk-in centre is successful: 5,000 people a month go for treatment of minor injuries and illnesses, skin complaints, muscle and joint injuries, minor cuts and wounds, and so on. It was very much opposed by GPs, on grounds that only they can handle such things, and is staffed completely by nurses. It is a great success—seven days a week, 24 hours a day—and it is wonderful. It sits next to a big supermarket, so people drift in with their problems.
	A polyclinic may be set up central Norwich, which I see as a means whereby GPs can find their way back into the process. They may have a role to play, but it should not be at the expense of the walk-in clinics. Central Norwich had the opportunity to have its own walk-in clinic in the early days of the Labour Government and the GPs rejected it. I am all for progress, but in a big sprawling city, two centres are needed so that people can easily access treatment for minor complaints, so axing such services should not be part of our agenda. They are popular with the local population and they have received huge press coverage; there will probably be more of it during the next few months.
	The nurse practitioners say that the centre can be run at a fraction of the cost of the war. We should be rewarding those places for the work that they do, encouraging and expanding it. When something is successful, we should not suddenly do away with it. I make a plea for the funding of the walk-in centre to be restored in full, so that the kind of services that the Government have been talking about this week, including pharmacies, continue. We do not need a GP for many of the functions at the primary level of our health service. I am not saying that we should take money from the war and put it into such services. We must find the right balance. I am not saying that troops should be brought back; that is an argument for another time and place. But the cost of the war should be balanced against these cuts. We have also heard about post office cuts, but in rural Norfolk and parts of Suffolk, as well as Telford, London and elsewhere, they are very important, and we should be finding the resources for them.
	The House needs to debate how decisions are made on these issues so that we can strike a balance between where the money goes. The House fails badly when it comes to saying where the Treasury money should go. It is no use holding up our hands and saying that we will never get certain matters past the Treasury. We are in a position to get the Treasury to act in such areas and our constituents expect us to do so.

Simon Burns: I shall not seek to detain the House for long, but I want to raise two important issues that my constituents feel should be brought to the House's attention before we go into recess. We have already heard during today's debate about sub-post offices, but the first issue that I want to raise concerns Chelmsford Crown post office.
	Until last summer, Chelmsford Crown post office was an extremely fine institution on the ground floor of a stand-alone building close to disabled car parking and accessible to shoppers in the centre of Chelmsford. Solely as a penny-pinching, cost-saving exercise, the Post Office decided to close down that post office and to move it to the first floor of WH Smith in Chelmsford High street. That is not a problem inasmuch as the location is still in the centre of the town with easy access from the outside of the building, but the problems begin on the inside, because as always with such deals the services are on the first floor. No retailer will give up its prime ground floor site where people enter the shop from the street to buy its products. The important issue is whether there is good and proper access to the first floor for members of the public—particularly those in wheelchairs, the frail and those with disabilities. As far as the Chelmsford Crown post office in WH Smith is concerned, the short answer is that there is not.
	Before this happened, I warned the Post Office that there would be problems, but my warnings were brushed aside. Unfortunately, the Crown post office has been in WH Smith for six or seven months and, sadly, my fears have been fully realised. There is a staircase to the first floor and one escalator; there is not an up escalator and a down escalator, so that is a problem. However, the Post Office says that that is not a problem because there is a lift. Indeed there is: it is small, so if people in wheelchairs want to use it, queues form. Inevitably, the lift breaks down. It did recently, and that caused tremendous problems. In the past seven months, people—certainly on one occasion—have had to be carried down by paramedics to get from the first floor out of the building. It is unforgivable that such a service is being provided in exchange for the first-class service that we received when we had our own stand-alone post office.
	There is another problem. People can get in through the WH Smith high street entrance from the same level, although if they are going to the Post Office they then have to use the escalator, go up the stairs or, if they can, get into the lift. However, the only way to come in through the other entrance—in the London road, where all the buses stop—is down four very steep steps. There is no access for wheelchairs, so wheelchair users have to go all the way round to the other entrance. For those with non-motorised wheelchairs, that is a long distance. That is unacceptable.
	My constituent Mrs. Gower was so incensed by the issue that in a relatively short period she started a petition that got more than 600 aggrieved—and mostly, but not exclusively, elderly—people to complain and try to pressure the Post Office into doing something about the situation. The best solution would be to go back to the status quo of a year ago. I fear, however, that that is not a viable option; the Post Office has made the move and is saving money. It does not seem that concerned about the quality of the service that it provides its customers, because people have to buy stamps and take their parcels, so they are, up to a point, a captive audience. That is particularly true because in previous waves in the past five years—although not this wave—the company closed many of the sub-post offices in the surrounding area, saying that the Crown post office could become people's sub-post office. Despite the lip service that it pays to the interests of its customers, the Post Office is not desperately concerned; otherwise it would not have moved the Crown post office to that unsuitable site and it would certainly have done something about access to it.
	Something has to be done; the situation cannot carry on in this way. I have presented the petition to the head of the Post Office and I have been told that the regional manager of WH Smith will visit shortly to have a look at the situation. That is good of him; I am grateful, and I hope that he does visit. However, I also hope that he realises the problems and comes up with concrete ideas to overcome them. One such idea would be to put a proper access way at the London road entrance so that wheelchair users, the frail and those with mobility problems would be able to use the entrance. Many of them use buses to come into town and the buses stop immediately outside the entrance.
	The second issue is that when people finally get upstairs, there are queues before they can get served. It would be sensible if there was a counter on the ground floor for the elderly and those with disabilities or mobility problems. That would save them having to go upstairs in the first place. I suspect that that is pie in the sky, because WH Smith does not want to restrict on its ability to make profits. However, if it is going to use its premises as a short-changed way of providing a Crown post office, perhaps it could sacrifice a little bit of space to help its customers.
	I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will not only pass on my comments to the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform but ask him or one of his junior Ministers to have a word with the Post Office to see whether something positive can be done in the near future to alleviate the problem.

Stewart Jackson: My hon. Friend is making a powerful and impassioned case on behalf of his constituents. As regards lip service, does he share my disquiet and the cynicism of many voters on learning of the behaviour of some Labour Members of Parliament who, two weeks ago, rushed hot-foot from voting against the Conservative amendment against post office closures to public meetings and to publicise on their websites and in local media the fact that they are saving their local post offices? Is he as unsurprised as I am that people are cynical about politics?

Simon Burns: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—that does contribute to the cynicism. Of course, some extremely honourable Members on the Labour Benches actually stuck to their principles by putting their vote where their mouth was and joining Conservative Members in supporting that amendment. It is incomprehensible to me, as someone who is as honest as the day is long, that someone can say one thing to their constituents outside this place, then come here and, at the behest of Government Whips, do something else in the Division Lobby. I find that slightly uncharacteristic of Labour MPs. It is the hallmark of Liberal Democrats every day of the week. We are used to it from them, because they, unlike us and Labour Members, also have the knack of being able to walk down a street, knock on 30 doors and, if they think they are going to win a vote, give 30 different answers to the same question that is asked of them. But c'est la vie—that is what old warhorses in the Conservative and Labour parties have come to expect from the Liberal Democrats. That is why I am surprised that in the vote on post offices only about 30 Labour Members of Parliament abided by what they were telling their constituents and joined us in the Division Lobby. However, that is on their consciences, and I am sure that the truth will out.
	It was interesting listening to the earlier part of the speech by the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright), who regaled the House with his problems with a sub-post office facing closure. He, of course, did not join my hon. Friends in the Division Lobby in the post office vote. Perhaps he was convinced by the arguments of the junior Minister who wound up for his party at the end of the debate, although having listened to that speech I would be slightly surprised if that were the case. I think that the hon. Gentleman might have been more convinced by the fact that he is Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Greater love hath no man for his job on the way up the greasy pole, in the hope that perhaps by the time the election comes in two years this will all be long since forgotten and he will survive. I suspect that people not only in his constituency but in Liberal Democrat constituencies have longer memories and get perplexed when they are told one thing in their local papers and then see their Members of Parliament doing another thing here.
	However, I must not be diverted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I wish to raise another important issue—the A12 road that runs through the spine of Chelmsford and Essex up into Suffolk and beyond, just into Norfolk. It is one of the main feeder roads into the east of England and East Anglia. It serves not only the county of Essex, but the ports at Harwich and Felixstowe. The serious problem is that this road is old and constantly having to be repaired and, sadly, because of the increase in traffic—some of it domestic vehicles and a lot of it business generated by the ports—it is becoming too congested to be viable as a through road and a main road into one of the most important regions of this country.
	I am pleased to see that Essex county council has spent the last six months making significant changes to the entrance and exit from the M25 on to the A12, which, although it has been open only for a few weeks, has made a significant improvement. If one goes from that point to my constituency of West Chelmsford, which means travelling 13 miles of road, one will see that about half of it is made up of three lanes, and the other half, two lanes. Beyond that, on the way to Colchester and Ipswich, the road constantly changes from two lanes to three lanes, which enhances the congestion problems.
	Another problem is that investment is needed to improve the road to make it one worthy for the demands made of it, and to enhance it for domestic and business travellers in the region, and to and from the region and its ports. There was a crackpot idea some years ago, in the early 1990s, when the then Government suddenly unveiled in one of their White Papers on road building that they proposed to build a brand new motorway known as the M12 from a point off the M25 right up to Chelmsford, going west of the existing A12. That came as a considerable surprise to most people because no one had been calling for a new motorway. I thought that it was particularly noble of the then Secretary of State for Transport to come up with the idea, because the road passed within about 200 yd of the garden of his house, which seemed rather extreme to me. Fortunately, though, cooler and saner heads prevailed and the then Government abandoned that cockeyed scheme. It has not been resurrected, even though when the current Government were carrying out inquiries and investigations on how to improve the road situation around Ipswich and the knock-on effect down the A12, it was looked at. Rightfully and thankfully, however, it was dismissed as a non-starter.
	We do not need a brand-new road. There is a simple solution to the existing problem, which is to invest in the infrastructure by upgrading the existing A12 in order that all the stretches of only two lanes have three lanes. That will cater for traffic and reduce congestion problems, costs for industry and the road safety problems that result from the bottlenecks. I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), about the matter on 4 March, and I was pleased to find that he shares my view that the road is of national importance and that it needs a major upgrade.
	That view is shared, interestingly enough, by the Minister for the East of England; it is nice to know that she has a view on the issue. It would be quite nice if she popped into Essex at some point as she is the Minister for the East of England, and no doubt, at some point, she will. She has had that job since the beginning of July, and she has not yet stepped into the county council area of Essex, which is the county with the largest population in the region for which she is the Minister. We look forward to welcoming her to Essex at some point when, in the course of her busy duties in the east of England, she can find time to visit us. She, too, believes that the road is important and needs improving and enhancing.
	When comments are made quickly at Question Time, the full horror of what is being said does not always sink in. However, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport said that
	"it is up to the hon. Gentleman and others to try to persuade the regional transport board for the east of England that it should prioritise that work... It is for the transport board to look at the priorities and make its recommendations to the Government."—[ Official Report, 4 March 2008; Vol. 472, c.1584.]
	When one reads between the lines and finds the other side of the story, it is clear that the regional funding allocation for the east of England is not sufficient to meet the needs of the region. That surprises no Conservative Members, because we have been complaining for many years about the way in which the Government spread their allocation of funding around the country. There are not that many Labour councils or Members of Parliament in the east of England, so as with other distributions of moneys, we do not do as well as the Labour heartlands.
	A letter from Essex county council states that
	"the Regional Funding Allocation... is not sufficient to meet the needs of the Region. For example, the A120 proposed improvement alone is expected to cost in the region of £400 million, which is almost half the total available for the Region's transport budget for the period to 2016. If one adds approximately £600 million for the A12 upgrade, and it could be much more, then it is obvious that unless funding is significantly increased the A12 will again fail to be funded under the RFA."
	What is badly needed now will become a pipe dream and we will have to wait many years for its realisation.
	Given that Ministers recognise the importance of the road and of improvements to it to solve the current problems, which will only get worse as time goes on, it is time the Government were prepared to reconsider and either make realistic allocations of money to the region for its road funding programmes, or make the road a project in its own right, and provide substantial funding so that we can get the work done and improve and enhance one of the main feeder roads into one of the most important regions in the country.

Shona McIsaac: I am especially delighted to speak today because it is my birthday, and I can think of no better way in which to spend it than in addressing my constituents' concerns in the House of Commons. Today's birthday is not special—there is no zero in it and I am a few years away from my bus pass.
	I want to consider bus passes today. A couple of days ago, on 1 April, free travel for the over-60s and people with disabilities was extended to cover off-peak travel anywhere in England, including outside people's local authority area. I praise North Lincolnshire council and its leader, Mark Kirk, for the scheme that it has introduced for residents.
	North Lincolnshire council's literature says:
	"you may travel free on any local bus service at any time of day...In the rest of England outside North Lincolnshire, your pass entitles you to free travel on local buses between 9.30am and 11pm only, Monday to Friday."
	North Lincolnshire is doing a wee bit more, so its scheme is especially good. Under that scheme, people can also use the pass on local trains. They have to pay half fare, but allowing the pass to be used on local trains helps many community routes in my area. The scheme also provides for companions to travel, some free and some for half fare. If a person with disabilities has a bus pass that displays a specific symbol, they can take a companion with them free.
	That is a fantastic scheme. However, I am sorry to say that North Lincolnshire council does not cover the whole of my constituency. Part of my constituency is covered by North East Lincolnshire council. Those who do not come from the area might think that having one authority called North Lincolnshire council and another called North East Lincolnshire council could cause a little confusion, but they are in fact different councils. In North East Lincolnshire, free travel is being restricted. Although pensioners and people with disabilities everywhere else in the area are getting an extension to free travel, travel for those who happen to live in Grimsby or Cleethorpes is being cut back.
	Today's  Grimsby Telegraph, the local paper covering the area, gives the game away by talking about the "controversial" Government scheme—I do not know whether other hon. Members have, like me, been inundated with masses of letters about this so-called controversial scheme. The newspaper states—this is the spin being put out by North East Lincolnshire council—that the extension replaces what was there before. In effect, the paper is trying to have us believe that the extension is not an extension, but a completely new scheme replacing the existing scheme.
	I have looked into the issue in detail, given the number of people who have contacted me asking, "What's going on here? This was meant to be a great extension to the scheme, but I'm now being told, 'You can't get on this bus,' 'You can't get on that train,' or 'You can't bring so-and-so with you.'" Some people with disabilities have told me, "I have no choice when I travel. I only do 16 hours a week, but this helps me get to work. Now I'm going to have to pay £9 a week." There has been absolute outrage.
	I have raised the issue with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport, and on several occasions with my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), both as Minister for Transport and as Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber. And every time they have told me that the decision is not a Government decision, but one made locally.
	I want to look back at how the council got where it is now. In 2000 a mandatory half fare scheme was introduced for the over-60s and disabled people. In 2006 that was extended to free travel on local buses, although people complained that it extended only as far as their local authority boundary, unless groups of local authorities in their area decided to club together. This year's scheme is an extension of that scheme.
	I checked on the funding for the scheme. In 2006-07 the Government provided English local authorities with an additional £350 million through the rate support grant to implement free local bus travel. That money will increase in subsequent years. In 2008-09, it will increase to £377 million and by 2010 it will be £396 million. Then I looked further, into the funding to tie that in with the extension. In 2008-09, the Government are providing an additional £212 million for the extended travel, on top of the rate support grant moneys, which will also increase year on year. That equates to an average funding increase of about 30 per cent. throughout the UK. I have checked with Ministers, who have told me that councils had their free scheme, but with the national scheme they can choose to add extra bits here and there, which is what North Lincolnshire council is doing—through, for example, companion travel and half fares on local trains.
	The average increase in the region in which my constituency lies is 25 per cent., but let us examine the two neighbouring local authorities covering my constituency in more detail. Until now, North East Lincolnshire council has invested about £1.6 million in the concessionary fares scheme, while neighbouring North Lincolnshire council has invested £1.1 million. Both councils have had additional funding for the extension to the travel scheme. North East Lincolnshire has received £603,000, and North Lincolnshire has received £409,000. My maths might be a wee bit ropey, but that increase, at around 35 to 37 per cent., seems to be above the average. That is a pretty good increase in funding. Within the former Humberside area, the East Riding of Yorkshire has had a 24 per cent. increase, and Hull city has received 33 per cent., so the two authorities in my constituency have done pretty well. However, we still have a cut in travel funding, which has outraged thousands of people.
	A stone's throw away from the town of Immingham is the village of East Halton, but the local authority boundary lies between the two. Family members live on either side of the boundary, and while one lot can travel free at peak times, the others will now have to pay, having enjoyed free travel for the past two years. There is only one way to describe this: it is a cut, pure and simple. I think that it is one of the meanest cuts I have ever seen. At one end of the two local authority areas is the town of Scunthorpe, with Grimsby and Cleethorpes at the other. Pensioners can get on a bus at either end and travel across the area. Some will have to pay full fare, but others will enjoy free travel. That is absolutely ludicrous.
	When I checked with the ruling group on North East Lincolnshire council, it said that it was getting only £613,000; in fact, it is £603,000. I tried to argue, saying, "Hold on! You've had £1.6 million from the rate support grant. Where has that gone? What have you done with it?" There was no answer to that. That was the council's explanation for having restricted the travel arrangements. I really want to know where that money is going.
	The council is blaming the Government, saying that they have cut the funding for the travel scheme in North East Lincolnshire, but nowhere can I find evidence of that happening. If this were a problem of Government funding, the neighbouring authorities would be in a similar position, but they are not. As I have said, North Lincolnshire council is providing free travel within its own area without restriction, and the East Riding of Yorkshire, which is Conservative controlled, is operating a broadly similar scheme. I think that people there pay an administration fee of about £15, but they then enjoy free local travel.

Ian Gibson: Has my hon. Friend thought about setting up a cross-party group—a sort of mini-Select Committee—that could call the council in? We have done that several times in Norfolk, and what we have found out has been very interesting. It often involves one person misappropriating the money into some other coffer. My hon. Friend is in a strong position to set up such a group. Has she considered doing so?

Shona McIsaac: I have been asking the council to rethink over recent weeks and months. Now that the new scheme is in place, I am going to crank this up a bit. Holding some sort of inquiry is a good idea, although North East Lincolnshire council tends to be the one calling me in all the time, rather than the other way round. I really do not know whether what is happening is deliberate or whether it simply involves someone who has totally misunderstood the situation.
	As I have said, the East Riding of Yorkshire, Hull city and North Lincolnshire are all providing the scheme as it should be run. It is a new scheme, but this is becoming a postcode lottery. Residents want action to be taken, and I am sorry that the council has not rethought what it has done to people. Will the Deputy Leader of the House speak to Transport Ministers to see whether there is anything they can do to force North East Lincolnshire council to look again at what it has done, and to do what everyone else in the area is doing? It is grossly unfair that the pensioners and disabled people in the North East Lincolnshire council area should be discriminated against in that manner.
	Another issue affecting my constituents at the moment is closures. I see some ears pricking up on the Conservative Benches, but I am referring not to post offices but to fire stations. The Humberside fire and rescue service completed a consultation about reorganisation on 31 March, and the fire authority is due to announce which stations will be closed on 11 April, in the middle of our recess.
	A cross-party group of Members of Parliament representing the area, including the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), is objecting to the planned closures and cuts. "Cross-party" does not include Liberal Democrats, however. We have no Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament, although sadly we have a few Liberal Democrat councils, North East Lincolnshire being one of them. The message that I want to convey to the fire authority is that if all the local Members of Parliament are saying that its proposals are wrong, it ought to think again.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), who was in the Chamber earlier, reported that one council, East Riding of Yorkshire, had voted in favour of the closures. I find it sad that a council so many miles from the part of my constituency where the closures will take place can affect what happens. I would be surprised if any of those councillors had ever crossed the notorious Humber bridge into Lincolnshire, and had even seen the fire stations for whose closure they voted last night.
	Everyone seems to want to raise more than one issue today. The next issue that I want to raise is slightly nicer: it involves something called Pilgrim 400. The town of Immingham, which I mentioned earlier, has a connection with the history of the Pilgrim Fathers.

Ian Gibson: And the minors.

Shona McIsaac: And the minors, yes.
	It is not a well-known fact in British history that the original point of departure of the separatists from Scrooby, Babworth and Gainsborough was the port of Immingham, although people associate them with Boston. They then went to the Netherlands; some of them stayed in Amsterdam for about a year before moving to Leiden. Finally, they made the journey to found the Plymouth plantation in what became the United States of America.
	The separatists did try to leave from Boston in 1607, but were captured and imprisoned. Eventually they were released, and, wishing to escape religious persecution, managed to find a Dutch captain with a vessel in Hull who agreed to take them to the Netherlands. The women travelled by barque down the Trent and into the Humber to connect with the boat. The men travelled overland, and eventually managed to get on the boat and leave the country. Sadly, the women and children did not, because the barque ran aground. They were captured by soldiers and arrested. That caused something of an outcry, and they were finally released and allowed to join their families in the Netherlands.
	Many of the street names in Immingham—Clyfton, as in Clyfton crescent, Brewster, Allerton, Bradford, Winslow—are the names of people who are still commemorated in the town today. This summer it will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the pilgrims' departure, and I pay tribute to those who are educating people in the area about its historical links. We have had some tremendous communications from various Mayflower societies in the United States.
	Finally, let me wish everyone well for our April break, spring break, or whatever we want to call it; we cannot really call it an Easter break. Members are welcome to visit the wonderful resort of Cleethorpes, where my family will be descending on me to celebrate my birthday—in style, I hope. I also want Members to support my bank holiday Bill; I notice that the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) is present. It will come before the House after we return from the recess. I am calling for an extra bank holiday—in the autumn, as the current time of year is a bit crowded with bank holidays—and I hope that all Members will support it.

John Randall: It is a pleasure to have been called to take part in this Adjournment debate. Although I shall address some local issues, as is the custom in such debates, I also wish briefly to touch upon a couple of events that have been reported in today's news media and which are far from constituency based.
	I have read today that at the Bucharest NATO summit Macedonia's application to join NATO has been turned down. Although Croatia and Albania have been asked whether they would like to join, Macedonia has not. That saddens me, as Macedonian forces have been fighting alongside our own and NATO forces in various theatres. It is openly acknowledged that its application has been turned down purely because Greece objects to Macedonia being called Macedonia; it wants to call it the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. That seems rather bizarre, particularly in the current age when we in Europe are all trying to get along together. The British Government must play their part in trying to resolve this matter. If we are trying to welcome countries in, we must reject the idea that their past somehow stays with them; such territorial disputes often go back a long way in history and are not really disputes at all any more but largely imagined, and they are no part of today's Europe.
	The other event in today's news is particularly close to my heart: the Government have published their draft Marine Bill. That is much to be welcomed—although judging by its size it will provide Members with a considerable amount of reading material in the coming weeks. I have been closely associated with this subject ever since I attempted to introduce my own Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill, which was reasonably successful as it got as far as the House of Lords before it was holed below the line.
	I do not want to be churlish, but it has taken a long time for this draft Marine Bill to be brought forward, yet it was part of all three major parties' manifesto commitments in the 2005 election. After the draft Bill has been subjected to the scrutiny that it is designed to receive, I urge the Government to introduce a Bill before the House as soon as possible, because urgent action is needed as there is very little protection for the marine environment. Members know from the reaction not only to my Bill, but to various organisations' campaigns, that this subject is very dear to the hearts of most of our constituents, regardless of whether we represent inland or coastal seats.
	I shall now turn to my Uxbridge constituency. Like many other MPs, I have been taking up the issue of the closure of post offices. As the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, the consultation closed yesterday, and I have made representations for the Moorfield Road and Uxbridge Common Park Road sub-post offices to remain open. When Members look into this matter, all of us realise—even those whose wish to save their post offices does not always translate into votes in the House—how much these post offices are valued, particularly by the elderly and the vulnerable. That is to do with so much more than just the services they provide, such as selling stamps or foreign currency. The sub-postmasters and mistresses are still in that great breed of retailers who want to give service and who are part of the community, and the loss of that would be the most tragic loss of all.
	I still think that the Post Office has not examined how it could provide that sort of service, because not all the requirements are necessary. Members of the community who want to renew their road tax can do so online or they can use their car to go to the next sub-post office, but people who want to collect a pension or to post a parcel may not have such access—a bus does not even go nearby the Moorfield Road post office. As I mentioned in the debate a couple of weeks ago, a system of services must be put in place. My retail outlet sells stamps, but it is not allowed to do anything more than that. I cannot help feeling that it would not be beyond the Post Office's wit to supply the weighing machines that produce the stamps—not the ones that people put on things, but the labels—so that some of that service could be provided by other outlets. It is a great shame that the Post Office is rushing ahead with this whole closure programme without thinking about how to improve its service—it just keeps cutting back all the time.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman prompts me to respond on that point. One frustration is that offices that say that they would happily deal with tax discs or passports, that to do so would make the difference and that people keep asking for that service only to be told that it cannot be provided are being turned down by the Post Office when they request to provide them. Their opportunity to be more profitable is hindered from upstairs by Post Office management, although it would help everybody on the ground.

John Randall: The hon. Gentleman is right. One of the things that I find most frustrating in today's world is that the Post Office seems to be cutting its own throat. It should be able to provide the things that people want in more outlets rather than restricting them.
	I was interested to hear the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) about the Crown post office in Chelmsford having already moved into WH Smith. I believe that on 17 April, the Uxbridge Crown post office will move to the local WH Smith. Although I made representations, met representatives of the Post Office and was given various assurances about the services that would be provided to ensure that there would be no difficulties in respect of access and the number of windows open, his experience fills me with dread. I try to be positive—I am not someone who always objects to change for the sake of it—but I have heard about several of my hon. Friends' experiences with these transfers of Crown post offices to WH Smith and I am concerned. I can tell the Post Office and WH Smith that I shall make several wanders down the high street in Uxbridge in the coming weeks to see for myself exactly whether they have lived up to their promises or whether a terminal 5 is taking place in a mini world in Uxbridge. I am concerned about that.
	Another local issue of great concern that is constantly being raised with me is what is these days called "garden grabbing". It occurs when family homes in suburban streets are destroyed or knocked down as developers put up flats, when gardens disappear through infilling and so on. That practice, which is destroying the character of many of our roads and communities, is happening in many areas of my constituency, but it is at its worst in Fairfield road, Uxbridge, where 35 per cent. of the properties have some sort of application lodged or an appeal going on. The poor residents of that road say, "We are going to stick it here, as we have lived here all our lives", but they see another development going up and another being granted on appeal. That is one of the most frustrating things—the local authority understood exactly what the application would mean and therefore rejected it, but it was then granted on appeal.
	One of the problems is that the inspectorate considers the individual planning application rather than looking at the area in a street or a road, which would make a lot of difference. The London borough of Hillingdon planning department is as frustrated as anyone else and it is trying to look at the strategy to see whether it can change it, but it is frustrated at every level.
	I have raised the subject before and the Government must look hard at it. Uxbridge is a pretty pleasant place to be, although it has its problems, but many of the ills of our society emerge as we destroy the fabric of our communities and of community life. If we destroy that community feeling, that will only bring more problems. We have seen that happen elsewhere, and it is about time that such things were regulated in a much fairer and better way. We should put the residents' interests first.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey made a plea about the parliamentary holidays and for us to be able to spend time with our children. I agree that it is incredibly important for all families to spend as much time together as they can. My children's holidays have not on this occasion matched the parliamentary recess, but I was able to spend the weekend away on a rugby tour with my daughter, who is the only girl in the boys' team. It will be her last tour away because once players get past the under-12s, they are not allowed to play mixed rugby any more.
	I want to pay tribute to all sports that get our kids actively involved. I am sure that the hon. Ladies on the Labour Benches will be delighted to hear that I am an advocate of women's sport. That has probably come from having a daughter who is keen on sport. I have seen its benefits. Sports are incredibly important for both boys and girls, especially team sports, because of their fitness levels and also to help them to bond together. Although such activity is mainly for the kids, the parents can find some diversions here and there. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have no idea what goes on on such occasions, but they are very civilised. In fact, it is akin to what goes on in the Opposition Whips Office, as far as I can see.
	As it is the last season for my daughter, I want to thank Ruislip rugby club and those involved with the under-12s, especially the coaches, Mr. Terry Russell, Phil Skelton and Robin Nelson. They have done so much. At least 40 kids turn up on a Sunday morning to play in all weathers, which is a tribute to the coaches.
	I shall be doing my own bit for fitness in the weeks of the recess, as I shall be walking the streets of Hillingdon as a part-time postman for my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) and his ambitions to become London Mayor. All of us who love this great city of ours realise that that gentleman will keep it a great city. I hope that when I return hon. Members will see a slimmer, fitter Member for Uxbridge.
	Finally, I cannot not mention the most pressing issue for most of my constituents, which is the proposed third runway at Heathrow. We had a debate on the subject yesterday during the Liberal Democrats' Opposition time, when I was disappointed that the debate turned into a party political one. It is a very serious matter and people from all parties have views on the subject. I find it particularly sad that on that matter, and incidentally on an inquiry into the war in Iraq, the Liberal Democrats do not seem to like anybody else to agree with them. They seem to think that it is their own particular thing, and they are rather sad if anybody dares to agree with them.  [Laughter.] Liberal Democrat Members laugh, but such things are very serious. When I have spoken to many Liberal Democrat Members at public meetings there has been no difference between us, but they suddenly seem to turn on those of us on the Conservative Benches who share their views when they are in the glare here. I find that particularly worrying. It is a different matter in Westminster Hall, which speaks volumes for that chamber.
	I have been discussing with my hon. Friends some of the things that people do not understand. One of my hon. Friends said to me, "But they're not going to increase flights, are they? I have been told by BAA that it is not going to increase flights—it is just to make the capacity a bit bigger so that there is more space." But 220,000 extra flights a year is, I think, an increase.
	There is another thing that is incredibly important for all Members to understand, which Members who do not live nearby or have not taken a special interest do not realise. When we talk of a third runway, one could almost say, "Well, what are they worried about? It is a bit of tarmac. It's just going to go down the road a bit, it's not really a problem." In fact, there are a couple of Labour wards that I could put a bit of tarmac through quite happily, but it does not work like that. It will not just be a third runway and a sixth terminal; what is proposed is a whole new airport the size of Gatwick being put alongside Heathrow. That is what people do not understand.

Simon Hughes: I was not able to be at yesterday's debate. I have it to read, but I have yet to do so. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that if there can be cross-party agreement on such issues, we all benefit. Although I am not a west London MP, having been to see colleagues and friends in west London and beyond, it seems to me that he and his constituents are right to seek support from others on what is not just a little expansion but a transformation that will go far beyond the inconvenience and environmental pollution that they already suffer from.

John Randall: I thank the hon. Gentleman. In the London borough of Hillingdon and the neighbourhood, the matter is completely cross-party, and long will it be so, I am sure. I regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman was not at the debate, because perhaps his reasonableness might have prevailed and the debate might have been different. There might not have been time for many other speakers, though.
	Finally, I wish a pleasant recess to Members of the House, and particularly to Officers of the House and all those hard-working people who have to put up with us day in, day out. I know that some of them will still be working, because when we go to our constituencies it is not all holiday, whatever those in the Press Gallery might say. Far from it. It is important that we recognise that this place is a community in itself, and we must thank those who work so hard on our behalf.

Geoffrey Cox: I endorse and echo the good wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) to all Members of the House and to all those who help and service the House. For their patience and kindness, often to a very new Member, I am deeply grateful.
	I do not propose to detain the House for long, but I want to draw attention to a number of matters that deeply affect the constituents whom I have the honour to represent. My constituency is profoundly rural, encompassing a large part of the north Devonshire coast. It contains a number of coastal communities, which are particularly affected by factors such as seasonal work, coastal erosion, outward migration and deprivation. In fact, it is not widely known that Torridge and West Devon contains two of the most deprived wards in England. People are often surprised to learn that—including a Minister whom I and a number of constituents from the town of Bideford met yesterday.
	My constituency includes part of the north Devon coast, and in the south it embraces a large part of Dartmoor. The moor is characterised by hill farming, but it also has a considerable amount of deprivation and rural isolation. Today, I want to speak specifically about the matters that affect people living in its fragile rural communities. I have been aware for some time that people in my constituency feel a sense of helplessness that arises from their belief that they are no longer able to affect the fate, future and destiny of their communities. Increasingly, that power is being removed to a remote and unaccountable quangocracy that includes the regional development agencies and regional assemblies, as well as bodies such as Natural England.
	Although I have no doubt that Natural England is motivated by a genuine sense of the public interest, its decisions do not always seem to be explicable or accountable. Moreover, it does not always consult the people likely to be affected. For example, Natural England has declined to assist people living in the coastal town of Northam, in the northern part of my constituency, who are facing acute problems with erosion in an area known as the Northam burrows. It is a beautiful spot: when the spring breezes tease the flowers from their buds, nowhere is nicer for a refreshing walk.
	The Royal North Devon golf club—one of the old- fashioned clubs that sprang up on the sand dunes and grassy banks of our coastline—is situated in the Northam burrows. However, the tide has been advancing relentlessly for some years, and it has begun to erode the pebble ridge that offers protection from the sea's depredations. The pebble ridge is an idiosyncratic feature of the area, and it is a precious and protected site, but only the other day we lost 25 m of it to erosion.
	The people of the communities that I represent cannot understand why the responsible authorities—the district and county councils—do not take the action that their fathers and forefathers took to protect the Northam burrows against coastal erosion. Simply recharging the pebble ridge would afford protection against the oncoming tide and the erosion that it causes. No such action has been taken because Natural England no longer believes that recharging the pebble ridge is the right thing to do, even as an interim measure. Instead, it believes in what is called managed retreat. I do not contest that there are sound reasons for that belief, but managed retreat means that the cycle of tides in that part of the Torridge estuary should be allowed to do its work, and it also means that interim measures are not in the interests of the Northam burrows.
	If Natural England is right, it is vital that its reasoning be communicated to the people who live in the area, because they are the ones who are affected by coastal erosion. Their houses and communities are at risk, as are the precious Northam burrows that they have loved and lived in for decades and centuries. They feel that the policy has been devised at a distance from them and has not been one on which they have been consulted and that, in any event, it lacks the justification and substance that it ought to have.
	There is an additional problem—a problem that, I hope, when I reveal it, will make apparent to hon. Members why the community is so concerned. On the Northam burrows—this is common to many precious and protected sites—many years ago, a landfill site was deemed appropriate. On that landfill site, which closed 40 or 50 years ago—certainly, 30 or 40 years ago—there was placed, pre-war and in the 1940s, a whole range of the odious and the bad. It is believed that there are many tonnes of asbestos of the most dangerous kind, that there may be medical waste and that it is all lying in a vast mound in the middle of the Northam burrows.
	As the tide advances and surmounts the dunes, as it is beginning to do, it is beginning to sweep in and encircle that landfill site. None of us knows what is in the site. We believe that it contains asbestos—we are pretty confident that it does—and we know that it will contain something very unpleasant. As the tide encircles it and begins to erode it, we can only speculate and greet with some fear and trepidation what may be uncovered by the tide.
	There is no doubt that the problem is urgent. There is no doubt that the problem is acute. All agree that it is urgently necessary, since the records of the landfill site were lost by the county council many years ago, that some urgent steps are taken to investigate what lies beneath. Yet month has followed month and year has followed year, but no such investigation has been carried out, while the tide continues to advance, while the pebble ridge continues to recede and be eroded and while the danger increases step by step, nearer and nearer to the communities that I represent.
	So I use this opportunity to raise in the House, I hope, in as clear and compelling a way as I can, the urgent necessity for Devon county council to act now. Those whom I represent believe that, as the tide encircles that landfill site not a catastrophe but certainly a very dangerous situation indeed could arise. The county council has committed itself to move forward with those investigations now for many months, if not years, and those investigations must commence. My constituents cannot understand the delay, and they cannot understand the policy of not recharging the pebble ridge and thus protecting the landfill site from the further inflow of the tide.
	One or other thing must happen, and the delay, inertia and apparent unwillingness of the county council, which I say with no partisan spirit is Liberal Democrat controlled, is something that those whom I represent can no longer countenance, understand or tolerate. I believe and hope that these words will be heeded, as will the cries and pleas of the local communities that I represent. That is the first issue, which illuminates, as I believe, why those whom I represent resent the sense of a quangocracy at a great distance from them not listening to the interests of the fragile rural communities in Torridge and West Devon.
	The future of post offices is, as the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) has mentioned, a critical question that is, even now, bearing on the consciousness of those whom I represent. We are in the middle of the stage of identifying the sub-post office branches for closure. I have never experienced such a process. It is characterised by what I can only describe as a rather sinister sense of intimidation. I have postmasters ringing me quietly in the night, afraid even to speak to their Member of Parliament because of confidentiality clauses and the implied and unspoken suggestion that if they speak to their Member of Parliament, make a fuss or draw their position to public attention, they may lose their compensation. They whisper to me in corners, and they telephone me confidentially. They are anxious and troubled—it is not too much to say that they are afraid.
	When the communities that I represent learn how many and which post offices will be affected, it will cause an outcry. Some of the post offices affected are in the heart of the most vulnerable, distant, remote, isolated and rural communities that I represent. It is well known that Devonshire has the largest county-wide network of roads in the country, some of which are of third-world standard. Even the manager of Stagecoach, the local bus company, has said that many of the roads in Devon—I represent one of the most far-flung regions in Devon—are inaccessible to bus services generally. Villages may have one bus a week, and certainly no more than one a day, yet post offices are to close, and the frail, the elderly, the vulnerable, and those in wheelchairs and electric buggies will have to negotiate their way to the post office on the roads that I have described. As for the weather, hon. Members who are familiar with the rain in Devon may fear and tremble for those people's welfare. They will have to negotiate all those difficulties and adversities to go miles to their nearest post office.
	The network change team—that is the euphemistic description of the team that is wielding the axe, and cutting and closing the post office network in my constituency—says, "Well, we'll provide a van." For people who live on a hill in Dartmoor, it is not a great deal of comfort to be told that for two hours on a wet, windy, bleak or snowy day the Post Office will provide a van. It is a brutal axe to wield on a number of scattered rural communities that are fragile, remote and isolated.
	The closures will hit the most vulnerable hardest. They will tear the heart out of some villages whose only contact with the rest of the world is through their post office or their public house—their public houses are closing at a similar rate to their post offices. The process of post office closures in my constituency is as brutal and as bad for the communities that I represent as any measure that the Government could have permitted. It is characterised by fear, secrecy and want of transparency. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) has told us that it is only right that full disclosure be made in relation to a post office. I agree with him entirely, but when one asks the Post Office, there is immediately a clamming-up and an unwillingness to disclose facts that could furnish information relevant to the submission and information on which the case could be made for a particular post office or number of post offices.
	The system is not fair, and it will not be seen as honest by those whom I represent. That is why I speak—not, I hope, with too much vehemence—on behalf of a currently undisclosed number of people about a programme that will land a particularly heavy series of blows on the community that I represent. We are one of the most deprived constituencies; we have no bus system, and no public transport system that would enable those affected to travel. It is no use saying that the 3-mile access criterion for rural communities refers to distance as the crow flies. We are not crows in Devon; we do not fly; and we have no buses.
	The lady, whom I will not name, to whom I spoke the other day in one of the villages where the post office may close—I cannot name her because that would be to name the post office, and to name the post office would breach confidentiality, which would have consequences—rides in an electric buggy for disabled people. It is 3.9 miles to the nearest post office, if her local post office closes. How is she to get there? There is one bus a day. She would have to remain in the other village all day waiting for the bus, merely to buy a stamp or send a parcel. Or, as the lady told me, with her Union Jack on the little basket on the front of her buggy—the House may have detected that she is indeed a Conservative voter, God bless her—she will set out in her buggy around the winding roads with their pits, holes and divots for the nearest village 3.9 miles away. I fear for her. She means it, and she will try, but is that what the Government want? Are the Government willing to permit an elderly person in a disabled buggy to set out on a 3.9 mile journey through fragile, remote rural isolation on Dartmoor in the wind, the rain and the cold in order to cash her pension or buy a few stamps? I earnestly submit not.
	That is another reason why the rural communities that I represent feel as profoundly as they do that the Government are not interested in the rural south-west and do not govern for them. The Government do not understand the problems of the villages and market towns that I represent. There are so many issues that affect my constituents' interests that I could speak almost until kingdom come, and I can already hear the silent groans of hon. Members at that dismal prospect, so I will not trouble the House much longer. I shall raise only one or two of those issues.

Brooks Newmark: More!

Geoffrey Cox: Do not tempt me.
	I have more than 65 sub-post office branches, which shows why my constituency is said to be the second largest in England and the sixth most rural constituency in the country, including our Scottish cousins. There are so many problems with services that affect rural communities and give rise to the state of mind among them that London, the House and the Government are not listening. Broadband is a minor irritation, it might be thought by the House, but there are dozens of villages in my constituency that cannot receive it. Sometimes parts of villages, and sometimes whole villages, do not have access to broadband.
	The regional development agency has assisted with a little money to enable some exchanges, but I get letters almost weekly about the rural businesses whose interests and prosperity have been frustrated by the simple inability to send an e-mail. I dare say that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge would not recognise the problem. I dare say that people in Uxbridge can at least get broadband, but in Northlew, St. Giles on the Heath or Belstone, or in many parts of those communities, people cannot get broadband at all.
	If we are to encourage rural business and encourage diversification in areas where the traditional staples of agriculture and livestock farming have, sadly, been in decline for so many years, how are we to give those communities the empowerment that they need to take into their own hands their destiny and their fate, unless we can provide them with at least the elementary necessity of a modern business, a modern broadband communication link?
	Just over the border, European money is aflowing and awashing in Cornwall, and it is gurgling around the plughole of public money, which is being squandered in millions and tens of millions. In Devon, however, and particularly in Torridge, there is nothing. We have none of the largesse that is falling like rain and manna upon Cornwall. We have a few bits—a few pennies pushed in our direction—but nothing when it comes to the enablement of my communities to receive the simple and basic necessity of broadband.
	One Labour Member has discussed bus concessions. Even bus concessions in Devon have proved an extraordinary and chaotic nightmare. Hitherto, the county council—

Shona McIsaac: Lib Dems?

Geoffrey Cox: Yes, a Liberal Democrat council. Nevertheless, I cannot blame the council for everything, and I do not seek to do so. [Hon. Members: "Go on!"] No, no. Perish the thought that I should blame the Liberal Democrats. Speaking for myself, I have always enjoyed the most cordial relationship with the Liberal Democrat county council, and I think that the Liberal Democrats try to do their best—it is not always a good best, but they try to do it.
	The county operated a bus concession scheme that allowed people to travel from 9 o'clock in the morning. Hon. Members might think 9 o'clock is a sensible time to begin, because that is when most of the buses go. They do not go after 9.30, because if people want to leave their villages and get to work, the buses must go before then. Unfortunately, however, the Devonwide partnership, which runs the scheme, felt unable to continue the original scheme, which was local, and introduced a start time of 9.30. That means that the scheme is almost useless for dozens of my villages, which people cannot get out of until after 9.30.
	Why does the scheme now start at 9.30? I will tell hon. Members the reason, which might provide an answer for the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and which is certainly the answer in Devon: the Government have simply not provided enough money. At the moment, the Devonwide partnership does not dare take the step of starting the scheme at 9 o'clock rather than 9.30. Why? Because the Government have done no serious study of the number of visitors who will arrive in Devon. Those visitors, and the distances involved, would take up much of the Government's money. So for the first year, the scheme starts at 9.30, not 9, which makes it automatically of little use to thousands of those who will have the card.
	Additionally, it has not been possible to extend the companion or carers scheme to the county. That, too, is a devastating blow to those who are disabled and those with autistic children, which is a subject close to my heart. Their companions will be unable to travel on the buses, because the scheme has not been extended. Having done the maths, the Devonwide partnership simply does not believe that enough money has been provided to fund it.
	The local scheme started at 9 and gave carers the right to accompany the disabled. The new national scheme starts at 9.30 but does not give carers that same right. I submit that that is another reason why hon. Members, were they living in one of the villages or market towns that I represent, would regard this as another meaningless, mysterious, peculiar, baffling decision taken remotely from them that hit hard their quality of life and their confidence that they could survive living in those remote and rural communities.

Shona McIsaac: I am curious about what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said about the concessionary travel scheme. His constituency is represented by a Liberal Democrat council, as is mine, and our constituents are experiencing similar problems and excuses. I have just checked and, apparently, Devon has been given £3.4 million in additional special grant this year, which is a 44 per cent. increase. He might mention that to his Liberal Democrat council.

Geoffrey Cox: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that debating point, but I shall not endorse it, because I have been told by those who run the Devonwide partnership—I respect many of them; they are perfectly decent people—that they have done their maths and there simply is not enough money, particularly as Devon is rich in tourist attractions. We have the south Devon coast, Dartmoor and the north Devon coast. The assessment is that the number of tourist visitors who will take up the benefit of the national concessionary scheme is so great that the money simply is not enough to cover it. That is why this is a problem that will adversely affect those whom I represent.
	I cannot conclude my brief tour d'horizon of the problems of my constituency without referring to bovine tuberculosis. Mine is a livestock farming constituency, and it is probably the single most densely infected area. Dozens if not hundreds of farms are locked up in restrictions associated with the disease. For years now—certainly since I entered the House nearly three years ago—I have repeatedly urged the Government to take action, and the only way to do so, certainly in my area, is, as the Select Committee recently recommended, to grasp the nettle and order a humane badger cull in properly controlled circumstances. I am sorry to have to offend Labour Members in their sentiment and proper regard for those beautiful animals, but all scientists now agree that unless we tackle the disease in the wildlife reservoir, the disease, which costs £100 million a year, will go on inflicting devastating distress upon farming families as they see their livelihoods, their herds and their farms simply being washed down the plughole, putting them out of business, and we will go on experiencing this unacceptable and corrosive problem in the countryside.
	I do not argue for an indiscriminate cull. The Select Committee got it exactly right. It must be done where the vets and the scientists agree that it will have effect—in the dense hot spots where we must eliminate the disease not only from the cattle population but from the wildlife population. We must bear down on both sides of the disease. We cannot simply replace infected cattle with clean cattle, leave infected badgers on the farms and expect TB not to break out again. That is what is happening, and it is time that the Government decided to end the scourge.

Alan Reid: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox). Like him I represent a large rural constituency and I share many of the frustrations that he expressed about the provision of services to rural areas, and the first issue that I want to raise before the House adjourns for the Easter recess is an example of such services being removed from rural areas—motorcycle test centres.
	From 29 September 2008, learner motorcyclists from my constituency and from many other parts of the country will face a round trip of more than 200 miles to take their tests, because on that date the new practical motorcycle test will be introduced to comply with European legislation. The aim of that legislation is to improve the standard of road safety for motorcycle and moped riders. There are good arguments for improving the test for motorcyclists because a disproportionate number of the accidents on our roads involve motorcyclists. As well as all the human suffering that a fatal accident causes, it is estimated to cost £1.5 million to society generally. Despite the benefits of the new testing regime, there are serious deficiencies in the way in which the Government are introducing it.
	In order to carry out the new practical test, the Government are constructing multi-purpose test centres. A few years ago, they agreed that most learners should be able to reach a test site within 45 minutes' travelling time and by travelling no more than 20 miles from their home. However, the construction of the new test centres is running well behind schedule. For example, in Scotland only two test centres are operational, one in Glasgow and one just outside Edinburgh. By September, when the new test becomes compulsory, the Driving Standards Agency expects only three more sites to be operational in Scotland—in Wick, Inverness and Kirkcaldy. That will leave a very large part of Scotland, including nearly all my constituency, well outside the 20 miles. In fact, some of the learner motorcyclists on the mainland parts of my constituency will have a round trip of well over 200 miles and even greater problems will face learners from the islands.
	For example, at present the test can be carried out on the isle of Tiree. However, in future someone from there will have to make a three-day round trip, with two nights away from home, to sit the test. The DSA says that it is negotiating for other sites. Oban in my constituency was on the original published list of sites, but what the DSA terms the "Oban site" may end up in Fort William— 44 miles from Oban and well over 130 miles from Campbeltown, which is at the other end of my constituency. Even if the Fort William site proceeds, and that is by no means certain, it will definitely not be ready by the time the new tests start in September.
	There are no transitional arrangements; on 29 September, every learner in the country will have to go to one of the new test centres to sit their test. The new system has already resulted in a business casualty in my constituency. Just a few days ago, a motorcycle school in Oban closed; the owners said that there was no point in continuing to teach motorcyclists if they had to travel all the way to Glasgow to take their tests, rather than take their tests locally as they can at the moment.
	I ask the Government urgently to rethink their plans for test centres. Better testing may well save lives, but only if it is accessible to learners. Under the current proposals it is not; round trips of hundreds of miles, or three-day round trips for islanders, cannot be considered to represent accessibility. I have already seen one motorcycle school close and I am sure that others elsewhere in the country will do so. Furthermore, there is a risk with the new scheme: people will be tempted to skip the test and use their motorcycles illegally if the test centre is too far away. Given the cost to society of a fatal accident—the human cost, plus the estimated £1.5 million financial cost—I urge the Government to ensure that there is an easily accessible range of test centres and to remember the 45-minute, 20-mile commitment that they gave a few years ago.
	I want to raise another issue, which is of great concern to the hill farming community in my constituency—the European Union proposals for electronic sheep tagging. They are still at the consultation stage, but the current proposals for the recording of individual sheep movements are completely impractical in a hill farm setting. They would involve recording each individual sheep's identity when a batch of sheep was being moved, but that is simply not necessary; recording the batch movement itself would be just as good for the purposes of disease control and food safety.
	Batch recording is in use at present and delivers a sustainable and robust method of recording sheep movements. It delivers food traceability and disease monitoring, as was demonstrated during last year's foot and mouth outbreak. Through the batch recording of sheep movements, every sheep in Scotland was traced within three days of the outbreak on 3 August. The current proposals are completely impractical in a hill farm setting, where flocks can be made up of more than 1,000 animals. The price of sheep is so low that the sheep farming industry simply could not sustain the price of electronic identification technology. When a batch of sheep is moved, recording batch movements, rather than each individual sheep's identity, is perfectly adequate for disease control and food safety purposes. I urge the Government to ensure in the negotiations at EU level that the proposed regulations are modified to reflect that.
	There is mounting concern in the Scottish shipbuilding industry at the delay in signing the contract to build the new aircraft carriers. The shipbuilding industry supports thousands of jobs in Scotland and is desperately waiting for the new aircraft carrier contract. I hope that the Government will sign that contract soon to allow the work to start. I also want to make the case for the carriers, once they are in service, to be based at the Clyde naval base at Faslane. Faslane has superb facilities. It is a superbly sheltered anchorage that gives enough clearance for large ships such as the new aircraft carriers to dock at low tide. There is enough space round about to accommodate all the back-up support that the carriers would require, as well as plenty of skilled workers within easy travelling distance and plenty of empty Ministry of Defence housing. Faslane has the setting, in the Gareloch, and the local infrastructure and work force to be an ideal location for basing the new carriers.
	My next subject—this time it is not a complaint but a welcome—is the Competition Commission's proposal for a new grocery supply code of practice, with the easily remembered acronym of GSCOP, and an ombudsman to police it. I welcome that recommendation because the current supermarket code of practice has proven ineffective at protecting farmers and other suppliers from exploitation. A good example is the huge difference between the price of milk at the farm gate and on the supermarket shelf. When the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs investigated that, it could never quite get to the bottom of where all the money was going, and the new code of practice and ombudsman are ideal for that purpose. I hope that the Government will take those proposals on board and give them their backing, and that GSCOP and the ombudsman will quickly be put in place.
	Finally, I want to raise an issue that has been raised by almost every hon. Member who has spoken—post offices. In my constituency, the axe has already fallen and eight post offices have closed, but that may not be the end of the matter. It may be the end of the compulsory closures in this scheme, but I am worried about the long-term viability of many of the post offices that have escaped the axe.

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend is right to be concerned, because sometimes even when one is given a promise, as we were during the last set of closures, that is not the end of the matter. We were told that the closure of two post offices—Abbey street and Bermondsey street—would result in the Dockhead service being strengthened and made more successful for the future, as it has been, but we now discover that the Post Office is saying that another one has to go. He is absolutely right to take these promises of "closure now and all safe later" with more than a pinch of salt.

Alan Reid: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he is quite right.
	The main concern of all the postmasters and postmistresses in my constituency is what is going to happen to the Post Office card account after 2010. We are still waiting for a formal announcement from the Department for Work and Pensions. If the Post Office is not successful in being given the POCA, I can envisage far more post offices in my constituency being forced to close. A warning of what could happen came when the TV licence contract was given to PayPoint. PayPoint has a large network of shops throughout the country, but they nearly all tend to be in towns and large urban areas—they do not have a rural network. For example, several islands in my constituency have a post office but no PayPoint outlet, so people cannot pay their TV licence over the counter any more, and the whole of the rural north Argyll area has no PayPoint outlet but several post offices. There is fear that the Government may give the contract to the likes of PayPoint or a consortium of banks, which do not have the rural network that the Post Office has.
	I urge the Government to write into the specification of the contract that whoever wins it must have a rural network—and an island network, which is important for my constituency. If the Post Office does not win that contract, it will mean the axe for a huge number of other post offices, and it will make it difficult for people to collect their pensions and benefits. I urge Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions to specify that whoever wins the contract, it must have a large rural network. I believe that the Post Office is the only organisation that can deliver that contract. The announcement must be made fairly soon to give security to postmasters and mistresses.
	Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise those issues. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will pass them on to the relevant Ministers. I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, all hon. Members and all staff of the House a very enjoyable April recess.

Dai Davies: I am grateful to be able to raise a few issues on behalf of my constituents, although I can certainly relate to a number of the other issues raised by hon. Members today.
	The first issue is the minimum wage and the low-paid. We have heard a lot over the past few weeks about the minimum wage rising to £5.73 an hour, but when we look at the moneys that people actually receive on that sort of wage, we find a 40-hour week giving £11,950 a year. If we add the basic working tax credit and the child tax credit, we have a total of £14,295. We are told that the poverty level is anything below £15,000 a year, so we can see that there are significant problems with the level of the minimum wage. I support the comments of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who said that the minimum wage needs to be reviewed.
	I am told that the average wage in my constituency is £18,000 a year. If we take a simple figure of 10 people, with one of them earning £100,000 and the other nine earning £10,000, we find that the average is £19,000. But only one of them would be on a significant wage, so averages are very misleading. If we take out those on significant earnings, such as the Member of Parliament, local authority officers, doctors and nurses, we find that the people earning lower wages in factories and shops are nowhere near even the average wage in my constituency, but we expect those people to pay rising fuel bills and council tax bills. That shows just how difficult it is for people to survive.
	My constituency has the highest rate of band D properties in Wales. According to any of the other statistics that we could look at, it is one of the poorest boroughs—we have high deprivation levels—but we pay the highest council tax, at band D level. The average house price is £110,000. Even if someone was on the average wage—if it was £18,000—how on earth would they afford a property that cost £100,000?
	Alongside that is a case that has been discussed in this House on many occasions—council housing. There should be support for councils so that they can have a level playing field with housing associations and other providers of social housing. The worry is how long social housing lasts. Is it up to the first buyer, or the second buyer? How long is shared equity? Is it for life? How do those who buy at shared equity levels ever move on? It is necessary to ring-fence social housing to ensure that affordable housing is always available. It is extremely difficult for people with an income averaging at about £15,000, £16,000 or £17,000 to get a mortgage at the level of £60,000, £65,000 or £70,000.
	I support wholeheartedly the scrutiny of MPs that has been initiated during the past few months with regard to how we operate, how we are paid and how we are paid expenses, but it should apply to all those paid by the public purse, including local councillors and MEPs. It should not stop at the House. I asked several local councillors and officers for whom they work, and the answer was invariably the same: the local authority. I asked again, "Who do you work for?" and they answered again, "The local authority." Not once did anyone say that they work for the people, that they are paid from the public purse and that they are there on behalf of the people. There will always be times when they cannot deliver the people's expectations, but hiding is not the answer.
	We have heard about planning and house building. If land is in the ownership of the borough council, who owns it? When a borough council decides to sell off its land, surely it should ask the people. Around our community, there are fields and green areas owned by the borough council, but sold off for development with almost no consultation.
	There is a huge difference between consultation and negotiation. If there is to be consultation, it should be meaningful. If there is no intention to listen and pay heed to those consulted, it should not be done. The credibility of politics is a problem for all of us. Not listening to the people whom we represent is a cardinal sin. We may not like what comes back from the community, but we walk away from it at our peril. We are driving people away from the political process. When we have local consultation and the involvement of local people, they should drive the decisions. They should be involved at every opportunity, but we do not involve them; we isolate them at every opportunity in the hope that perhaps they will go away.
	The previous debate was about the drugs strategy. I intended to speak then, but I hoped to contribute to the current debate, so I left my comments until now. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) for his work on the all-party group on drugs misuse. Recently, we met a group of young people from all over the country to discuss the drugs strategy. The first thing on which they picked up was the lack of input from young people. There are few conversations with young people. They do not have to be with those who take drugs; they could be with those who would argue against that. We should ask for their input on what we should do to prevent young people from becoming addicts. Schools and education are huge topics, and time and again young people say, "No one asks us. We are told what education we should receive, but we're not asked."
	Let me consider inactivity. When the Government pledge funds to community facilities, I am sure that we all support that. The problem is how long the funding will last and whether it is short-term funding, with borough councils then saying that they cannot afford to help and support community centres and youth projects. It is no good funding something for six months, 12 months or two years. If we cannot fund according to need, there is no point in funding.
	We need to fund more youth workers and social services so that the contact with those who need them happens where the problems occur. I recently spoke to some of our police officers, who said that they were providing cover because there is no input from social services and not enough youth workers. We need to be proactive, not reactive. At the moment, we put pressure on our police forces to be reactive rather than putting permanent structures in place. Yes, that means money, but if it is well spent, it will pay dividends in future. I hope that the Government will listen to some of those arguments.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish you, the staff of the House and all hon. Members a peaceful and restful recess.

David Amess: I join other hon. Members in sending my best wishes to the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), who is not currently in her place, on her birthday. Whatever her age, she does not look it. The Deputy Leader of the House smiles; I hope that she will deal with all the points that the hon. Lady made. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) his passionate support for ladies playing sport. Like him I have a daughter who plays sport—mine is a successful female footballer—so I applaud any strategies to encourage ladies to play sport.
	There are 10 points that I wish to raise before the end of this April Adjournment debate. Because of the shortage of time I will rattle through them, but the Deputy Leader of the House is very good at ensuring that I receive answers to my points in due course. My first point is about parliamentary questions—a subject that was raised at business questions earlier. The Leader of the House gave an assurance that the practice of Departments referring hon. Members to websites would no longer be seen as satisfactory.
	The reason why I ask a lot of written questions is that I do not always receive answers to my original questions. To give the Deputy Leader of the House just one example, last year I asked the Home Secretary about her meetings with Sir Ian Blair. I did not expect her to tell me the detail of every location and so on, but the process of answering that question has been tortuous, and at the end of it all I am still none the wiser. Some Departments are splendid and give good answers, but others are very tardy.
	Now that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has returned to the Chamber, I want to congratulate him on his campaign to improve the A12 network, which, as an Essex MP, I know would certainly benefit my constituents.

Simon Burns: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's generous comments, but it would be unfair of me to take all the credit for what is happening. Essex county council is doing tremendous work, as he knows, but I also pay tribute to the  Essex Chronicle, my local paper, which, in the finest traditions of all local papers, has mounted a vigorous campaign to get action to redress the problems on that important road.

David Amess: In the true modest style of an Essex Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend is not taking the credit for the campaign. I join him in congratulating his local newspaper on its campaign.
	Secondly, I am the chairman of the all-party group on inflammatory arthritis. There is a type of arthritis called—I hope that I can pronounce this properly—ankylosing spondylitis, which is a chronic degenerative arthritis of the joints that causes inflammation at the sites where ligaments and tendons attach to the bone. Ankylosing spondylitis is an incredibly painful type of arthritis that is quite difficult to treat and for which there is no known cure. However, there are treatments and medications available to reduce the symptoms and the pain.
	The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recently undertook an evaluation of the latest treatments for adult patients with severe forms of the condition. After considering all the evidence, NICE recommended that the two most cost-effective treatments should be available to patients through the NHS. Those treatments can also be administered by the patient at home instead of in hospital, thereby enabling them to take control of their condition and medication. That is a good decision, supporting a modern NHS.
	However, although its evaluation has been lengthy and thorough, NICE has acknowledged that the appeal hearing against the recommendation, which took place this week, could lead to further delays before guidance is finally issued. I would therefore ask the Deputy Leader of the House to have a word with the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), to see whether something can be done to expedite matters.
	My third point concerns people using mobile phones while driving cars. My view on mobile phones was shared by the late and much lamented Eric Forth. I have asked the Department for Transport a series of questions about the number of prosecutions of people using mobile phones. The answer, from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), was very instructive. I am absolutely baffled by the disparity between regions. The legislation was introduced in December 2003, but in some areas no prosecutions or proceedings have ever been instituted, so the law is simply not being enforced throughout the UK. I have lost count of the times I have been stuck behind a lorry whose driver is obviously involved in an interesting phone call and showing no regard for other road users. This is a serious problem, and I hope that we can start to take it a little more seriously than we seem to at the moment.
	Dr. Vini Khurana, an eminent neurosurgeon in Australia, has just produced an interesting paper stating that there is a direct causal link between people using mobile phones and the incidence of brain tumours. Once upon a time, Members used to present petitions about mobile phone masts and similar issues. That all seems to have gone very quiet at the moment, but it has certainly not gone quiet as far as I am concerned.
	I was honoured to be the only UK representative at the recent Taiwanese elections. Compared with what has been going on in Zimbabwe, it was a joy to go to Taiwan and to see people enthusiastically grasping the opportunity to vote in an election. The election was fought rigorously between the KMT and the ruling Democratic Progressive party, and the KMT won, receiving the largest percentage and number of votes in the history of Taiwan. I was also fortunate enough to meet the new President, Ma Ying-jeou, on the evening of his election. I was struck by his warmth and humanity, and by the clear vision that he had for the future of his country, given all the challenges of trying to work with China and of not becoming isolated.
	I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will pass on my thanks to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton). In the Christmas Adjournment debate, I made a plea for money to help to tackle cliff slippage, and she listened to my plea. I was supported in my representations by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge), and we were delighted to receive the extra funding. It is being well used, but I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the House can guess what I am going to say next. Southend needs more money, because there is now further slippage closer to the town centre, so I hope that the hon. Lady will once again be able to work a charm offensive with her right hon. Friend.
	Another issue that hon. Members are trying to deal with at the moment is that of hospital parking charges. I remember clearly when those charges were first introduced. Labour Members who were then in opposition protested about them, but they are now widely accepted. My hospital in Southend is land-locked; there is no room for it to expand. My constituency has a huge number of elderly people. They are not lazy; they need their cars to get to the rheumatology clinic, for example. The parking charges can range from £2 to £4, and that can soon mount up for people visiting a loved one with cancer, for example. The hospital is now building a multi-storey car park, but that is causing further difficulties. Will the Deputy Leader of the House have a word with her ministerial colleagues to see whether they have a view on this matter?
	Another issue that I have raised before in these Adjournment debates concerns a constituent named David Clark. Ten years ago he was working for Essex police as a police officer. He was forced to retire from his job on medical grounds, following bullying and harassment by senior officers. This is too complex a story to develop in just a minute, but it is all to do with whistleblowing. My constituent did a splendid job in his time with the police force. His maltreatment followed his managing an investigation into theft and stolen goods in 1997. He did the right thing and decided to pursue legal action against the chief constable of Essex in July 2006. In the recent High Court hearing, Mr. Justice Tugendhat ruled in my constituent's favour and, nine months on, in June 2007, he received £93,000 in compensation from Essex police force in an out-of-court settlement. What is not acceptable is that the costs of the case—£35,000—have still not been paid, which is putting my constituent under a huge amount of strain.
	During the High Court hearing, the judge condemned the detective sergeant involved as "not capable of belief", and said that he could not be regarded as a "candid witness". He made a number of criticisms of the organisation of the Essex police, which he said was in stark contrast to my constituent, whom he considered to be a "careful and honest witness". Most frustrating of all, my constituent has tried over and over again to arrange a meeting with the chairman of Essex police authority, to absolutely no avail. I find that desperately disappointing.
	The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) raised an issue involving his local driving test centre. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East and I are confronting exactly the same issue, and we are very concerned about it. I will not be disloyal to my former constituency, Basildon. I will simply say that to relocate the entire test centre to Basildon will cause huge problems in Southend, because it means a journey of nearly 14 miles. I strongly support the efforts of the Southend and District Driving Instructors Association to save the Southend centre.
	The penultimate issue that I wish to raise concerns Mr. and Mrs. Eeles, who came to my surgery recently. The couple, aged 71 and 76, took a one-day coach trip to Belgium to buy cheap tobacco. They acted within the law: they bought 3 kg. The Customs officer stopped Mrs. Eeles and detained her—an elderly person—for two hours, confiscating her legal amount of tobacco. That was absolutely crazy. Mrs. Eeles is very upset, and I support her in all the representations that she is currently making.
	Finally, I want to say something about a young lady in my constituency called Felicia Cantone. Last week a local newspaper ran the headline "Felicia loses leg but has just two days off". The story was about a 10-year-old girl who returned to school two days after her leg was amputated. She had to have that horrific operation to prevent the spread of bone cancer—a rare type of cancer called Ewing's sarcoma, which was first diagnosed when she was seven. She is an incredibly brave girl, and she returned to school in two days. Apparently, the operation increased her chance of survival from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent.
	The point that I want to make—and I do not say this is a joke—is that Felicia needs a prosthetic leg, and cannot obtain one from the national health service. I am baffled by the reasons for that, but there are all sorts of problems: for instance, she is very young and is growing quickly. The family are fundraising locally in order to send her to America. It is an extraordinary case. I hope that after I have written to the Deputy Leader of the House with more details, she will ask the Department of Health to consider it.
	I join other Members in wishing everyone a very happy April break.

Stewart Jackson: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). I, too, send birthday greetings to the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac).
	It is a year or so since I had an opportunity to speak in an Adjournment debate. Things have moved on quite well in Peterborough during that time, not least given the prospect that the Posh will be promoted to league division 1 for next season. They are currently top of the league.
	Last September saw the opening of the Thomas Deacon academy, the largest academy in England and Wales. We have had the first tranche of city centre regeneration, and the planning application for the North Westgate development has been submitted to Peterborough city council. The super-hospital is about to enter a new stage of construction, and we hope it will be opened in 2011 or 2012, and we also have other interesting projects connected with the regeneration of Peterborough.
	I shall now briefly raise some key issues. First, I beg the indulgence of the House as I wish to return to the matter of post offices. It is often forgotten that a reduction in the urban network is also a major issue. Under the rather Orwellian-sounding urban reinvention programme, my constituency has lost six post offices in the last six years, reducing the total from 23 to 17, and we fear that when in July the proposals are put out for consultation across Cambridgeshire—and Northamptonshire, I believe—we may lose another six to eight just in the Peterborough constituency. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) is leading the campaign in his constituency against post office closures, and I pay tribute to Sir Peter Brown, the Cambridgeshire cabinet member for communities, who is co-ordinating all the local authorities and other key stakeholders in Cambridgeshire to put the case for keeping those post offices open. That is needed, not least in my constituency; I once described the Crown post office at Cowgate as resembling a Dickensian soup kitchen because it was completely overflowing with people, and the queues can go out on to the street, particularly in the summer. The idea that we can lose another six to eight sub-post offices is barmy.
	Flag Fen is one of the finest bronze age settlements in Europe, but it is desperately short of money. Sadly, its manager, Georgina Butters, recently left because there is insufficient funding. Although it has had some money remitted via English Heritage, there is not sufficient funding to develop both the artefacts and the tourism and leisure side of the site. It would be a great shame if Flag Fen were to be left to close, and its great attractions were to be lost to Cambridgeshire and the country as a whole.
	Members will know of my consistent interest in the issue of the fortification of some foods with folic acid, which is mainly as a result of the fact that the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus is located at Park road in Peterborough. There is an unanswerable case that folic acid helps to reduce massively, if not completely eliminate, neural tube defects and appalling disabilities such as spina bifida and hydrocephalus, which afflict hundreds of families a year and cause hundreds of elective terminations. That can be ameliorated if folic acid is introduced into women's diets before they become pregnant. Last year, the Food Standards Agency cleared the way in making that case, but unfortunately there has been a delay in respect of a ministerial recommendation. I hope Ministers will look very favourably on the huge weight of scientific evidence, because this is about people's lives—it is about the quality of children's and families' lives. It is time that we followed the lead of the United States and 32 other countries across the world, and embraced the fortification of some foods with folic acid.
	Another major health concern in my constituency is chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In Peterborough, about 2,700 people suffer from the condition; it is the fifth biggest killer in the United Kingdom, and the people in my primary care trust area are 10 per cent more at risk of hospital admission than those elsewhere in the UK—indeed, it is described as a COPD hot spot in the east of England. I was recently privileged to attend and speak at an event at the Thomas Walker medical centre in Huntly grove: a British Lung Foundation reception and launch for its Breathe Easy campaign. It is important that Government understand how important this issue is. We do not know why the condition particularly affects Peterborough. Long ago, Peterborough moved on from being a large industrial engineering city and a railway city, but agricultural materials are burnt in the area, and agriculture, food processing and packaging takes place across the area. The combination of those things might mean that our area is particularly afflicted by that condition, and, indeed, by asthma, which is also a significant problem. The last figures showed that my local Peterborough primary care trust was ranked 32nd highest for asthma admissions out of 300 trusts nationwide.
	The final health issue that I wish to discuss is teenage pregnancy, which is a major problem. It is a badge of dishonour that my constituency and the city of Peterborough is the teenage pregnancy capital of the east of England, and that, regrettably, the trend in my area is either stable or rising, rather than reducing, as it is in so many other parts of both the east of England and the country as a whole. That is particularly the case given that some 43 per cent. of the 190 young women between the ages of 15 and 17 who fell pregnant in 2006 in my area chose to have an elective abortion—that is a tragedy and social catastrophe. We must do more. We must not just repeat the mantra of sex education and more access to contraception. Although it may be unfashionable, there must be a moral aspect to this issue, and girls and young women should be given different paths to go along. This is not just about sex education.
	The main substance of my remarks will not be about that issue, but about the report produced earlier this week by the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs entitled "The Economic Impact of Immigration". It is timely that we debate that report, albeit during the debate on the April adjournment. I hope that Ministers will find Government time in the next Session to debate the issue, because I believe that unfettered, unrestricted and uncontrolled immigration has, in many respects, been a social disaster for this country in terms of social cohesion, community relations and the economic situation in many towns and cities, particularly in the east of England.
	Immigration has had a massive impact in a small number of areas, not only Peterborough, but Breckland, King's Lynn, Boston and other parts of both the east of England and the rest of the country. It has had a big impact on the delivery of housing and health services—indeed, I was advised only today of a big increase in tuberculosis in the Peterborough city council area. That is just one of the side effects of large-scale, unfettered immigration. It also has an impact in respect of policing, the issue of people trafficking and the sex trade, adult social care and, in particular, education.
	The issue that I would like to discuss most is the entrenching of welfare dependency, particularly in the host community. Who would have believed that a Labour Government would have allowed such uncontrolled immigration as to leave us nationally with a situation where 5.2 million people are on benefits, where we have to recruit low-skill, low-wage people to do jobs that our own people should be doing and where we tolerate slum housing, low wages and poor working conditions because we are told spuriously the Government's bogus argument, advanced by the Minister for Borders and Immigration, the Home Secretary and others, that immigration has produced benefits to the value of £6 billion a year? That argument has been conclusively demolished by the report produced earlier this week. I feel vindicated by that cross-party report, which has been produced by experts and has rubbished the Government's campaign of misinformation on unprecedented and uncontrolled immigration. Sadly, it is five years too late. I feel that I have ploughed a lonely furrow on this issue. If one ever mentioned the subject hitherto, one was inevitably accused of racism even though it is incumbent on every Member to judge the situation in their constituency and to speak up for their constituents, irrespective of their race, religion, creed or colour. I have done that.
	I have never taken the view that immigration per se is a bad thing—I believe that controlled immigration is a good thing. Such massive economic and social change has come at a high price, with a massive strain on community resources, the delivery of public services, resentment between communities irrespective of racial group and, in particular, the embedding of a low-wage, low-skill economy and the pricing out of many people onto jobseeker's allowance and other benefits.
	If we consider the situation in Peterborough over the past few years, we see that the number of those on active jobseeker's allowance rose from 1,640 to 2,280 between 2001 and 2007. The median gross weekly rate wages have declined from £447.10 to £421.90 over the past two years. The number of NEETs—those not in employment, education or training—has risen. In fact, there was no change overall in the five years between 2002 and 2007. Some 4,500 people in Peterborough have been on benefits for more than five years.
	Did no one think that this would happen? When the Government told us that between 8,000 and 15,000 people would come from the European Union countries in 2004, did they consider what the impact would be on a constituency such as mine? In my constituency, 49 per cent. of pupils achieve five GCSE grades from A to E, the lowest in the east of England. We have the third lowest proportion of adults with degree-level qualifications and the third highest with no qualifications. We have 10 super output areas of the most deprived 5 per cent. of the region. One in 14 of my constituents is on incapacity benefit and 24 per cent. of jobseeker's allowance claimants are in the 16 to 24 age group. Self-employment levels are low and the resident earning figures reduced over the past few years.
	We were told that mass immigration was a panacea, and the Government told us that it was a "good thing". There was no proper methodology or analysis and no economic study was undertaken to see the impact on a low-skilled, low-waged, low educational attainment constituency such as mine, which is moving from a heavy industry, railway-focused economy to a more service-based economy.
	It could be said that Peterborough is the victim of its geographical circumstances. It is on the A1 and the A47. It is a transport hub and naturally the sort of place where businesses would consider developing the service industry, the food processing and packaging industry, transportation and logistics. It is at the centre of a rural area near south Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire and the rest of Cambridgeshire. However, no thought was given to the impact of 20,000 EU migrants coming to the city and what would happen to primary care, primary schools, transportation, policing and other services.
	It has been lonely to put this case. It has not always been fashionable to make the arguments that I have made today. I have held two Adjournment debates on the subject over the past two years, one last June and one the year before that. I feel vindicated by the report. I feel that I have done my duty to my constituents. I welcome those who want to make a better life for themselves and their families and contribute to my community, but the Government have failed dismally in their responsibility to have regard to social and community cohesion, a good balance and proper controlled migration. When I talk to my constituents I find that when the election comes, this Government will be driven from office.

Peter Lilley: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson). I shall allude to some of the issues that he raised, because I share some of his concerns and views.
	First, I want to raise some issues affecting my constituency that have the common theme of housing. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who was hoping that I would launch straight into cannabis, in which case he would have stayed, now knows that he is free to depart, unless he wants to stay for quite a long time.
	I turn first to the provision of accommodation for Travellers and Gypsies in my constituency. Like everybody else, they need homes, and we have to provide accommodation for them somewhere in the eastern area. Following the lead of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Anne Main), I raised the matter in a debate in the House, and I wish to return to it because we did not get a satisfactory answer about two things from the Minister who responded. The first was why such a high rate of growth of the population of Travellers in the eastern areas is assumed. Why is it assumed that the Traveller population is increasing more rapidly than the population of Africa, which has the highest growth rate otherwise known in the world? Why is such a large growth rate built into demands for provision that are being imposed on local authorities?
	Secondly, we want to know the rationale behind the policy of requiring the local authorities that already have the highest number of sites for Travellers to provide the highest number of additional sites. People in the part of my constituency that falls within the St. Albans area are particularly incensed, because St. Albans already has by far the largest number of sites for Travellers in Hertfordshire, yet it is being required to provide nearly twice as many as most other local authorities, and the highest number in Hertfordshire. Surely that is not fair. I hope that the Government will require the Government office for the east of England to think again and advise the East of England regional assembly likewise that it should not follow such a policy. It puts a blight on my constituency, because so many sites have to be considered. The sooner the whole matter is resolved, the better it will be for everybody, Travellers and settled population alike.
	The settled population—the vast majority of our constituents—also need homes. In Hertfordshire, we have in the past met the targets for building new homes for the existing population, and we have done so without building on the green belt in my constituency. That is becoming increasingly difficult, because the targets imposed on us have been raised, raised and raised again.
	North Hertfordshire district council now has to provide an additional 15,000 homes. The Government have already given permission for the building of an initial 3,600 homes west of Stevenage—the largest incursion on the green belt that has ever been known—yet that additional demand has been put upon us. My constituents are worried, because in seeking sites for that large number of homes, the local authority has to consider an even larger number of potential options. So large areas of the constituency are being examined as potential areas although—thank heavens!—not all will be selected to meet that target.
	That problem has caused concern, disturbance, anger and resentment, but those emotions are nothing compared with the outrage that has greeted the discovery—the exposure—that officials from the Department for Communities and Local Government have had meetings with their counterparts in Luton borough council, South Bedfordshire district council and Bedfordshire council, as well as with representatives of the developers, Blore Homes, to consider building homes in the North Hertfordshire district council area of my constituency. Moreover, they met without informing or inviting officials or councillors from North Hertfordshire district council or Hertfordshire county council, and they did not let me know that the meetings were taking place.
	In other words, the DCLG considers that it can meet its targets by building in our district, on the beautiful stretch of land between Luton and the ill-named but extremely lovely part of my constituency known as Lilley Bottom. That name has nothing to do with me, although it may possibly have something to do with my ancestors. I wrote to the Minister for Housing a couple of weeks ago, as soon as I learned what had been going on. I wanted to know why Government officials had met developers and local authority staff to consider building in my constituency without letting my local authority or me know. So far, I have had no reply.
	The Deputy Leader of the House will respond to the debate. Although she will probably not be able to explain why I have received no reply, or give me the answer that I need, I hope that she will make sure—post haste—that her colleague replies to me. The anger in my constituency will only be compounded if Ministers fail to tell us what is going on, or to apologise for what has gone on so far.
	Why do so many homes need to be built? Why have the targets been raised? Sixty per cent. of the additional homes that we need are simply the result of the existing population living in smaller households. That happens because people are leaving home earlier and living longer, and also—sadly—because families split up. The average household size declines each year, with the result that a county such as Hertfordshire—or anywhere else—needs roughly 0.5 per cent. more houses each year. That accounts for the 60 per cent. of additional homes to which I have referred. However, those additional homes will require little extra infrastructure. We will not need more schools or hospitals, and probably no more roads, electricity or water. We need that extra infrastructure only when there is an increase in total population, and that is exactly what is happening in this country.
	The excellent report from the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee highlighted the fact that net immigration into this country is causing a substantial increase in population. Based on the Government Actuary's projection, I calculate that our net population will increase by 190,000 a year through net immigration—and, of course, we must not forget those people's offspring. Indeed, nearly 40 per cent. of the new households that we need in this country will be the result of the policy of allowing immigration to exceed by so much the number of people returning home or emigrating.
	The Economic Affairs Committee report also said that two thirds of the new households in Greater London are the result of net immigration. Although there is remarkably little direct immigration into Hertfordshire, we see its consequences. People of all ethnicities move out of London into the county and, individually, they are welcomed—after all, many of the people in Hertfordshire came from London originally. However, the net inflow into London has also produced a huge net outflow. Much of it has been into Hertfordshire, and that is what has created the problems that I have described.
	We have had 17 statements about housing demand and supply in the 25 years that I have been a Member of Parliament—no, 17 statements in the 10 years that the Government have been in power—not one of which has mentioned net immigration as a cause of the extra demand and the need for extra supply. So the Government have been trying to obscure what is going on.
	Personally, I have always taken the view that most immigrants are not, as they are often caricatured, scroungers, criminals or welfare-dependent. They are hard-working, law-abiding, decent people who want to come to this country to work hard for the benefit of themselves and their families and to make a contribution to society, but they need homes. It would be monstrous to allow people to come to this country and then not to provide the additional homes that they will need in due course. I want to highlight the hypocrisy of parties that encourage immigration and oppose restrictions on immigration but then campaign against the need to build additional houses whenever and wherever it occurs. I hope that the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) is listening to my remarks, because he has said in the past that one way in which he diverges from me and cannot understand me is on my desire to place a restriction on immigration to this country.

Simon Hughes: indicated dissent.

Peter Lilley: The hon. Gentleman said so in a debate on the subject, and he can look it up in  Hansard, if he has any desire to resile from that position. I hope that he will have words with the Liberal Democrats in my constituency, who oppose every proposal to build houses, while not being prepared to do anything about the cause of a larger population in this country.

Simon Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Lilley: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, as soon as he has thought of a good line to take.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough said that his had been a lone voice in highlighting the issue—not quite alone, because I have been doing so for some while. In 2005, I published a pamphlet called "Too Much of a Good Thing? Towards a balanced approach to immigration". Instantly, of course, Liberal and Labour opponents declared that I must be a racist, because I was discussing immigration. They were laughed out of court, because people in my constituency know that I have spent the past 25 years working extremely hard with the Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Sikh communities to integrate them into the broader community. So that attempt to silence me did not work and probably rebounded on those opponents, as was shown in the subsequent election result.

Simon Hughes: I am very happy to continue a conversation later with the right hon. Gentleman, but, first, I have never taken the view that there should be no limit on immigration. That would seem an illogical view to take given this country's size. Secondly, I was a dissenter in my own party when the view was taken that we should have no delay in the new east European entrants being allowed in immediately. I took the view that we should do as the French and others did, which was to have a gradual process, which was eventually done for Bulgaria and Romania. Thirdly, I am certainly always willing to engage with colleagues from any party, if they believe that they cannot have extra house building in their own communities when the population nationally is going up. I spend a lot of my time telling my own colleagues as well as others that everywhere must take its fair share of additional housing and the additional number of people who come to this country.

Peter Lilley: That is good; I shall be able to quote the hon. Gentleman to his colleagues in Hertfordshire, and I suspect that they will disown him as he has effectively disowned them.
	I want to comment on two aspects of the Government's response so far to the Lords Committee report on immigration. First, they revert to asserting, "But still net immigration contributes £6 billion a year to the economy." They are using a half-truth in a way that would be monstrous if they were to use the other half. It is true that immigrants contribute an extra £6 billion in goods and services to the gross domestic product, but it is equally true that they consume £6 billion in goods and services from GDP. It would be monstrous if anyone said therefore that immigrants are a net burden of £6 billion on the economy, but that could be done with as much veracity as Ministers saying that immigrants are making a net contribution of £6 billion. Immigrants produce £6 billion, and they consume £6 billion. Most of us roughly consume as much as we produce. Indeed, the nature of Government statistics means that they automatically produce as much as they consume.

Stewart Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is strange that in the week when the 10p tax rate was abolished—a change that will affect 5.2 million people who earn between £5,000 and £18,000—the Lords report found that it is the low-skilled, low-wage work force who, under a Labour Government, will be most disadvantaged by the policy of uncontrolled and unfettered immigration?

Peter Lilley: It is, and that is an indictment of those who have tried to pretend that that is not happening. The Lords Committee made the important point that if we try to meet so-called labour shortages—skills shortages—by importing skills from abroad rather than by skilling-up our own people and rewarding those who acquire those skills, we will permanently keep an unskilled, low-paid element of our population. That is one of the most malign consequences of the policy that the Government have been pursuing for the past 10 years—a policy that I hope they will bring to an end as a consequence of the report.
	Ministers have commented on the Lords Committee's suggestion that a limit or broad target be set annually to bring about a more balanced relationship between immigration into the country, and emigration and return from it. The Government's response has been, "That's nonsense; the policy affects only a fifth of those coming into this country. Those who come here from the EU, those who come here as students and relatives of people who live here would not be covered by it," but exactly the same is true of their points-based system, which they flaunt as though it will be the solution to high levels of immigration. They cannot have it both ways. The truth is that we should return to the situation that we were in before the Government were elected, when we had much firmer control and restrictions on immigration, and allowed people to come and settle here only if they were genuinely needed—the aim was not that they should effectively replace the existing population.
	I want to turn to a matter that was raised by a number of hon. Members in this debate and in the previous debate—the issue of drink and drugs. As was emphasised by a constituent who recently came to my surgery, too often we put too little emphasis on the problems of drink, relative to the problems of drugs. My constituent has benefited from the care provided by Hertscare, a local anti-addiction organisation to which she paid tribute, and I join her in paying that tribute. She felt that it was not given enough resources to cope with those who suffer from alcoholism, as compared with those who suffer from drug addiction. It is important that we get the balance right, because overall the damage done by addiction to alcohol is at least as great, if not greater, than that done by drugs.
	Earlier today we had a debate about drug policy. One aspect of it concerned the response to rumours that the Government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is to reject the Prime Minister's suggestion that the cannabis classification be upgraded again—it was downgraded at the request of his predecessor on the advice of that body. As far as I know, I am the only Member of the House who has served as a Front Bencher, both in government and in opposition, who has never taken cannabis and has no desire to take cannabis—

Simon Burns: indicated dissent.

Peter Lilley: Sorry; shall we say the only Cabinet-level Member who has not taken cannabis? It seems particularly true of Cabinet Ministers that they find themselves forced to admit that they have tried cannabis. I have not taken it, and as a result I have a clear enough head to know that one cannot enforce or defend a policy of banning cannabis in a country where we allow nicotine and alcohol. It simply does not work, has not worked and will not work.
	I draw the attention of the House to another of the prescient pamphlets that I wrote some years ago, "Common Sense on Cannabis," arguing that if we try to outlaw cannabis use, the danger is that we will drive soft-drug users into the arms of hard-drug pushers. All too often, we push people into the arms of those who persuade them to move on to heroin and cocaine. In that pamphlet, I put forward the highly unpopular policy that we should not simply de-penalise the sale of cannabis, but legalise it in a controlled fashion.
	At the time, the pamphlet caused quite an upsurge of interest, and there was a great deal of support for it on the Labour Benches. It was that which caused Tony Blair to invite the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to consider downgrading cannabis—a typical Blairite response that achieved the worst of all possible worlds. It was an attempt to manipulate the headlines to make it appear that he was doing something that would appease his Back Benchers who wanted a more liberal policy, without in fact altering the law in any significant way. It sent out the signal that cannabis use was tolerated, while leaving it against the law and allowing no method of getting it except from gangs who also push hard drugs.
	Now we are seeing the new Prime Minister doing the same smoke and mirrors thing, thinking he can give the impression that he is doing something substantive by asking for cannabis to be upgraded again. These things are second order and not important. What we need is fact-based, evidence-based realism on the issue of drugs, and that we clearly will not get from the present Prime Minister, any more than we did from his predecessor.
	I hope the House as a whole will not rule out listening to or taking the advice of the advisory council before we have even heard it. I do not know what it will say or what evidence it will present. When it has offered evidence and advice, I will examine it. If it causes me to change my mind, I will change my mind, but I will not say that we should accept it or reject it before we have even heard what it is.

Simon Hughes: I share the right hon. Gentleman's view. I have always taken the view that if one sets up such an eminent body to advise, there must be a mighty good reason for not accepting its advice. Our system should presume that the advisory council's recommendation would have effect unless Parliament consciously votes to overturn it. If the Government could step away from that, we would have a much better debate and outcome.

Peter Lilley: That is a valid point, although I would not go that far. We should not hand over and put out to commission the powers of the House. If the advisory council offers advice, we should consider it. It may be good advice or bad advice, but I always took the view that Ministers are responsible for the advice that they take and should never blame their advisers. The House is responsible for the advice that it takes and should not leave it entirely to its advisers, but it should listen to the advice before it rules out taking it or commits itself to taking it.
	No Adjournment speech would be complete without a reference to post offices, and mine in particular would not be. There is some poetry by Walter Scott, I think, although I cannot quite remember it—something about "Sadder than owl-song in the evening breeze, Is that cry of woe, 'I told you so.'"
	I was the Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry responsible for the network of post offices, then I moved on at the Department of Social Security to be their main customer and source of revenue. I had to consider at that stage whether we should go down the line that the Government have decided to go down, and make people receive payment, wherever possible, through the banks rather than through the post offices, and thereby potentially save—as the prospect was offered to me when I was Secretary of State—£400 million on the contract that the DSS had with the post offices.
	I decided that that would be a false saving, because making that saving on the DSS contract would so undermine those post offices that the Government would have to step in to subsidise them. Indeed, it would cost more than £400 million to subsidise and maintain them. Why? The Government paying pensions and other benefits through the post office was unique, and people left the post office with more money than they entered with, so they spent some of it there. That created footfall and custom. It meant that the—

Barry Gardiner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Lilley: I will, in a second. Hon. Members: He has just come in! There seems to be a general view that I should not give way, because the hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber for long, and I think I have been speaking for too long. Equal weight should be given to both points, and I shall endeavour to move on.
	I therefore concluded that we ought to try to make the post offices as low cost as the banks in delivering cash, and I introduced a computerisation programme that was designed to achieve that. For a year or two after the Labour Government came to power, we were told that that was going according to budget and plan, but then they suddenly announced that it was not, cancelled it, pocketed what they thought was the saving and found themselves going down exactly the route that I predicted. That is why we are in this position now.
	I do not know whether it is possible to go into reverse at this stage and find some way to reduce the costs of delivering benefits and pensions through the post offices, but if we could do that we would undoubtedly increase their viability no end and avoid the need for subsidies and for so many closures. However, we ought to put the blame where it is due, which is on Ministers who adopted the policy against the advice of their officials. I have constantly asked Ministers to acknowledge that they were told that that would be the consequence, but they have refused either to admit it or to deny it—I am sure that they would have denied it, if they had been able to. They have deliberately created the situation in which we find ourselves, and they cannot escape the blame for that.
	I hope that the Members of Parliament who are gathering on both sides of the House to hear my closing remarks have an excellent recess and use it to read not only the two pamphlets that I wrote, which I mentioned earlier, but, probably even more importantly, the House of Lords report on an issue that is one of the most important to our constituents. Indeed, according to all the opinion polls, it is now considered among the most important issues by our constituents, for the obvious reason that they can see what is going on and do not need the Lords report to point it out in the way in which we experts do. I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a very happy recess.

Shailesh Vara: I, too, thank all those who have taken part in this afternoon's debate. We have heard a number of excellent speeches, ranging in content from local constituency matters to national issues. We have also covered some international matters.
	The hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) began proceedings with a detailed speech. The House will share his concerns about the fact that many blind people do not have access to television, despite the fact that technological advances mean that they can partake of it. I have to say that the arguments he made in attempting to claim that he did not really vote for post office closures when we all know that he did were disingenuous to say the least.
	The point was aptly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) when he said that such behaviour contributes to the cynicism about all those who work here and does not help our cause in trying to establish that we are a reputable profession and people who are trying to do the best for their constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) rightly pointed out that the fact that the hon. Member for Telford happens to be Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury may have had something to do with his about-turn, by which I suspect his constituents will not be convinced.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) spent the first seven minutes of his speech talking about matters to do with the fact that the recess does not match the school holidays. He seemed to be under the impression that the debate was a continuation of this morning's business questions. I have to take issue with his point about long summer holidays. He may be taking a long summer holiday between July and October, but the majority of his colleagues in the House will be doing constituency work. I have sympathy with Mehdi Kazemi, the Iranian gentleman whom he mentioned, and I hope very much that the Deputy Leader of the House will have taken on board the concerns that were raised.
	The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) said that this debate was an opportunity for Members of Parliament to speak about constituency matters and get things off their chest, and for his sake I hope that he was able to do both those things and that he feels a lot better for it. He touched on the issue of Iraq, and I hope again that those points were noted, and he also spoke of the funding for a walk-in medical centre in his constituency, arguments that were well put, and I am sure that his constituents will feel well served by him in today's debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) gave a typically forceful speech, and I have every sympathy with his arguments on Chelmsford Crown post office. He rightly put into perspective the difficulties now experienced by people who visit the post office compared with when it was in a stand-alone building. He said that that was unacceptable, and I agree and wish him well in trying to resolve the difficulty that his constituents face. I also agree that the Government should review their road-funding programme.
	I take this opportunity to wish the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) a very happy birthday—a day which I hope was made all the happier by her speech of great diligence. Her constituents will have noted that she has aired their concerns about the inconsistencies in bus travel passes, and I am sure that they will be grateful to her for having put on the record the blip in the historical records of the connection between Immingham and the Pilgrim Fathers.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) gave a typically wise and thoughtful speech, with a touch of humour thrown in for good measure. He too rightly talked of post offices and mentioned the elderly and vulnerable people who will be particularly affected by their closure, and also referred to their being a useful community resource for those who use and live around them.
	I endorse wholeheartedly my hon. Friend's point about encouraging more sport for ladies. Women have enormous talent in this area, and it is not being nurtured as well as it could be. We should look to ensure that sponsors of sport take note of the comments made in today's debate and give good consideration to making sure that we have more female sports on television. At this point, I should say that we need more role models, such as Charlotte Edwards, the captain of the England ladies' cricket team. It is my privilege to have her as a resident in my constituency. As my local newspaper  The Hunts Post said, she is
	"one of the most influential female England cricketers of all time."
	Long may she continue to be successful, having clinched the Ashes for England in February 2008.
	My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox) gave a masterful and eloquent performance, and I very much hope that Devon county council will deal with the problem of the tide encircling the landfill site, the consequences of which will be dangerous for the local community. I hope also that he will have some joy in trying to get broadband for the residents of St. Giles on the Heath and some other villages. It is a problem that those Members with a rural element to their constituencies understand all too well.
	The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) gave a measured speech, and I hope that his plea to have more access to motorcycle test centres has been heard by the Deputy Leader of the House, and that she will pass the message on to the relevant Minister. The House will have noted his welcome to the new grocery supply code of practice and his urging that it be put in place as soon as possible.
	The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Davies) made a wide-ranging speech, and the House will have noted the economic circumstances of his constituency, including the issues concerning drug misuse. We cannot fail to have noticed his observation that the police have to double up to do social work. Their position is not in any way assisted by the fact that they also have mountains and mountains of paperwork to add to their workload.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) made a broad speech that covered a number of issues. I suspect like many Members, I agree entirely with him that the answers that Ministers provide are often very inadequate and that there is a discrepancy between different Departments in respect of the efficiency with which questions are answered. Many of us share that concern. The House will have been staggered by the revelation that Felicia Cantone, the brave 10-year-old girl in his constituency, cannot get a prosthetic leg because she is deemed to be too young.

David Amess: Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene—just for a few seconds?

Shailesh Vara: Very quickly.

David Amess: I just want to tell the House that when I got back to my office, the phone had been ringing. A number of people have decided to contribute money to help the young lady. That is fantastic news.

Shailesh Vara: Clearly, my hon. Friend has been well served by his comments in this debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, my constituency neighbour, raised a number of issues. I have considerable sympathy with much of what he said. I echo his arguments on the closure of local post offices and add my support to the efforts for more funds for Flag Fen.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) gave an excellent speech that rightly touched on the problems faced by a number of constituencies in respect of house building. He rightly drew a link between immigration and the need for new homes. I hope that the Government and others have taken note that when people talk of such a link they are not racists. When my right hon. and hon. Friends and I talk about restrictions on immigration, we are not being racists—it is called good governance, and I suggest that the Government take that on board.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker, I conclude by wishing a very happy recess to you, all Members and their staff, and all the staff of the House—particularly those in the security arena, who do so much hard work to make sure that we have a safe environment in which to work.

Helen Goodman: It is a great pleasure to take part in this April Adjournment debate. As always, it is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara).
	I want to begin by commenting on the remarks that have been made about post offices. That issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright), the hon. Members for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) and for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson), the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox) and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley).
	I do understand that the proposed closure of post offices is a real problem in many communities because 12 of the 48 post offices in my constituency are proposed for closure. The Government recognise the social and economic benefits of the post office network; that is why they are spending £1.7 billion on subsidising the Post Office. As all hon. Members must acknowledge, that is a large sum and it should be possible for the Post Office to support a proper network with it.
	Hon. Members said that they were frustrated by the quality of the consultations. I remind them that, until now, between 10 and 15 per cent. of the proposals have been changed as a result of representations. That emphasises the importance of hon. Members taking part in these consultations and encouraging their constituents to do so. Earlier today, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House promised to take back to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform the request to share information about individual post offices and their commercial strategies, along with all hon. Members' remarks, which we will submit to the Minister responsible.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Telford spoke about audio-description in his excellent speech. I do not know whether he is aware that the Communications Act 2003 sets minimum targets for audio-description, and it is the responsibility of Ofcom to ensure that they are met. He also spoke about Ironbridge, the world heritage site. I can remember visiting that as a child and seeing a coracle, which only goes to show that I am much older than he is. I understand that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and regional Ministers have set up a group that is looking into how to protect Ironbridge. He also spoke about manufacturing in the west midlands and the importance of inward investment in creating new jobs.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey rightly spoke about the importance of the timing of recesses. I will undertake to update the work that we have done on that by reviewing which local authorities hon. Members send their children to school in so that next year we can take that into account when we set the timetable.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke about an important site in his constituency and the importance of getting a sensitive development there. He went on to talk about the case of Mr. Mehdi Kazemi, an Iranian. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of this, but the Home Secretary has agreed that that case should be considered in the light of representations that were made by the House of Lords, because every case must of course be considered on its individual merits, and people's human rights must be taken into account when decisions are taken. That is the policy that the Home Office follows. The hon. Gentleman also talked about electoral under-registration, which is, as he knows, very significant. I will forward those remarks to the Ministry of Justice.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) spoke about the costs of the Iraq war. He cited an extraordinary figure, which I have checked. The Government estimate that by the end of 2006-07 the conflict will in fact have cost the British taxpayer some £5.5 billion, which is considerably below his figure. He raised the reasonable point that we should have more discussion before sums of money are committed to. I know that the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury have discussed improving the scrutiny of estimates. In addition, next year we will have a debate when the spending announcement is made in recognition of the significance of this issue. My hon. Friend also talked about the decisions of Norfolk primary care trust with regard to walk-in services, and I hope that he will take part in that consultation.
	The hon. Member for West Chelmsford spoke about the A12. I understand that the Highways Agency is aware of the issues and is trying to manage the traffic flows better through electronic messaging and so forth. I realise that his request was for more investment, and I will pass that message on to the Department for Transport. However, I would like to defend the allocation of funding around the regions and remind him that grants are made in the light of circumstances, not politics.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) proved what a hard-working Member she is by coming in to make a speech on her birthday, and I would like to join others in congratulating her on that, as well as congratulating the people of Immingham on the 400th anniversary of the Pilgrim Fathers. I would also like to congratulate North Lincolnshire council on its excellent implementation of the bus pass extension. What sounded particularly good about its scheme was the flexibility involving trains.
	The hon. Member for Uxbridge raised a number of issues, including the size of the Marine Bill. The Bill is as large as it is because it includes a plain English version so that more people will be able to read and understand it more easily. He spoke about his daughter, who is a very good rugby player. The Government take the issue of women's and girls' participation in sport seriously, which is why Kelly Holmes is the national school sport champion; she also chairs something called the GirlsActive service.
	The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon spoke about the serious problems faced by his hill farmers and of the coastal erosion of the Burrows. I would remind him that spending on coastal erosion has doubled, and by 2010 it will be £800 million. He made a wide-ranging speech, which I felt in the end became a rural version of Monty Python's "I lived in a shoebox" sketch. I found that I could not reconcile the number and severity of the problems that he raised with my picture of Bideford, which I know to be an exceptionally beautiful place where my parents-in-law met. I would also remind him that the decision on bovine tuberculosis is one that will be taken in the light of scientific, not sentimental interests.
	The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute spoke about the problems his constituents have in taking motorcycling tests. His constituents have an exceptionally long journey to take, and I understand that that is a problem for them. I will take his concerns to the Department for Transport, although I am sure that he will understand that in rural areas and in western Scotland, access will not be as close as it is for those in large cities. He asked about the delay in the shipbuilding contract, and I refer him to a parliamentary answer given in the Lords last week, which explained that the main manufacturing contract for the aircraft carriers will be made when the commercial arrangements and the work schedule have been completed.
	The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Davies) spoke about his constituency. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) is to be congratulated on having made the most efficient speech of the afternoon, raising 14 issues in 10 minutes.
	The hon. Member for Peterborough and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden talked about immigration. I would like to point out that this Government's policy is not to have uncontrolled immigration, which is why we are introducing a points-based system. We are also investing in skills and training for people in this country so that they can benefit from economic opportunities. All those policies on increasing participation in higher education and increasing the number of apprenticeships were opposed by Conservative Members.
	It only remains for me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to thank you and all the members of staff who work for us so assiduously throughout the year, and I wish everybody a very pleasant and restful April recess.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I might be allowed to reciprocate the many good wishes that have been directed to the Chair and the officials of the House. I hope that everyone has a very good Easter break.
	 It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PETITIONS

Post Office Closures (Bristol)

Stephen Williams: I, too, wish you a happy recess, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	This petition is specifically about post offices in the city of Bristol. Post Office Ltd recently announced the closure, or consultation on the closure, of 12 post offices in the city of Bristol, four of which are in my constituency. They follow many other closures in recent years. In the Bristol, West constituency, it is proposed to close the Alma Vale Road post office in Clifton, the Derby Road post office in St. Andrews, the Redcliffe Hill post office in Redcliffe and the Wellington, West post office in Henleaze. There are petitions about all four closures, but the one that I am presenting is specifically about the Derby Road post office. At the point when it was given to me on Sunday, it had been signed by 1,209 people.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of those concerned about the proposed closure of Derby Road Post Office,
	Declares the importance of this Post Office to the local community.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to instruct Post Office Ltd to keep Derby Road Post Office open.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.,
	[P000167]

Post Office Closures (Kingston and Surbiton)

Edward Davey: I, too, wish you a happy Easter recess, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I am presenting another petition against post office closures, on behalf of thousands of local residents in Kingston and Surbiton constituency, who oppose proposals to close five local post offices in the area. I am grateful for the help of the  Surrey Comet, local newsagents and the thousands of local residents who signed the petition. There are just over 4,500 signatures at the time of presenting the petition, although more are coming in every day.
	The petitioners call on Post Office Ltd to drop the plans to close the five post offices because they provide an essential service to the local community. Many vulnerable people will be hit by the plans if they go ahead, especially the elderly and disabled, not to mention the many businesses and other residents who will be harmed.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of local residents in the constituency of Kingston and Surbiton,
	Declares that Post Offices on Surbiton Road, Hook Rise South, Burlington Road, and at Norbiton Common and Plough Green are of great importance to the local community and economy.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reject proposals by Post Office Ltd to withdraw services from these post offices, in recognition of their importance to the local community and economy, and the absence of suitable alternatives.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.,
	[P000170]

CHARITIES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Michael Foster.]

Barry Gardiner: I believe
	"that there is no problem in this country that can't be solved by the people of this country. Millions of people choose to bring about social change and to solve the problems we face through the third sector. In every part of our society, voluntary organisations, community groups and social enterprises are making people's lives better, are fighting inequality and are creating a better environment for us to live in."
	If the Minister thinks that that is an uncharacteristically grandiloquent opening statement for one of my speeches in the House, the reason is that I did not write it. It is the statement that the Prime Minister made in his foreword to the Cabinet Office report on the future role of the third sector in social and economic regeneration. Not for the first time, he was absolutely correct to identify the fact that week in, week out, day in, day out, the British people—often quietly and often on their own—work to bring about social change and improve the lot of their fellow citizens and others around the globe.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and other colleagues in the Cabinet Office on their extraordinary engagement and on the Government's commitment to developing the third sector, not least through the £500 million that they are investing in it in the current comprehensive spending review round. However, I am not here simply to congratulate the Government; I am here to ask the Minister to consider one way in which we might be able to help the charities in our country to make an even stronger impact on social change than they do now.
	At the end of December last year, there were 190,541 charities on the Charity Commission register. Of those, 21,244 were subsidiaries or constituents of other charities. That means that there were 169,299 main charities on the register, which are required to prepare accounts. That figure includes 2,498 group charities, which are separate charities that nevertheless share the same registered number, because they have been grouped together for ease of administration.
	When the income of those charities is broken down and itemised against the individual charities, a remarkable pattern emerges. Many of those 169,299 so-called main charities are very small indeed. Indeed, one fifth of them—more than 35,000 charities—have an income of less than £1,000 a year. Nearly 60 per cent. of all registered charities in the UK have an income of less than £10,000 a year. More than 95,000 charities—almost 60 per cent.—have a combined income of less than 1 per cent. of the total charitable income each year.
	The financial wealth of registered charities, measured by their annual incomes, is concentrated in a few very large charities indeed. Just 8 per cent. of charities receive more than 90 per cent. of the total annual income recorded on the Charity Commission register. Perhaps most extraordinarily of all, out of the 169,299 main charities, a tiny minority—just 679—attract more than 50 per cent. of the total income, so that £22.4 billion goes to 0.4 per cent. of all charities.
	I want to make it clear that I am in no way speaking against big charities. They do wonderful work, and I applaud their professionalism and success. However, I want to focus on the logical implications for the 92 per cent. of charities that operate on only 10 per cent. of the total income. That 92 per cent. represents 142,367 charities, all of which seek and apply for funds, accrue administration and funding costs, and have staff and trustees who are passionate about and devoted to their cause—yet those charities often compete with others in their field, rather than collaborating with each other.
	I do not want to stop any charity, or any person in any charity, doing their bit to make a world a better place by alleviating suffering, promoting education, finding a cure for disease, protecting animals, cleaning up the environment or reducing poverty. However, I hope that the Minister agrees that there must be a more efficient and effective way of harnessing all the incredible human resources, commitment and good will that those 142,367 organisations represent.
	The question presents itself: how much more effective could those charities be if there were an easier, cost-effective, integrated and secure way of generating a steady revenue stream into their good causes? What if they did not have to rely on the jumble sale, the bucket collection, the Christmas raffle or the fun run as their main fundraising event of the year?
	Charitable fundraising in the UK has developed enormously in the past decade or so. It is now possible to donate to television appeals such as Sport Relief or Children in Need by giving credit card details over the phone. It is possible to donate over the internet, or even by downloading a British Legion poppy as the background image for one's mobile phone. All of that is tremendous. Ease of giving is one of the most important elements of charitable giving.
	Just as important, however, is the research that shows that people prefer to donate to the charities that have the lowest cost overheads. The CharityFacts website, set up by Professor Adrian Sargeant at the Bristol business school, states that, in general, it costs between 15p and 25p to raise £1. The average gearing is 1:5, with 20 per cent. of income spent on fundraising. That increases slightly with face-to-face collections, to between 20 and 25 per cent., whereas text message donations give almost as much money to the mobile phone company as to the good cause.
	According to research carried out by the university of London, the reason why collection tins continue to be one of the most popular ways for the public to give money is that such giving is spontaneous. In fact, spontaneous giving accounts for 83 per cent. of giving in this country. Planned donations account for just 17 per cent. Here, we begin to see a recipe: low overheads, quick and easy, and spontaneous. Convenience and immediacy are key drivers. How can we turn that formula into a means of resolving the issues that beset the 142,367 charities, all with administrative and fundraising costs, that are competing with one another?
	Let us imagine a situation in which, whenever anyone in the UK purchased anything in a supermarket, a petrol station, a clothes shop or any retail outlet where they could pay by credit card, they had the opportunity to round up the cost of their purchase to the nearest whole pound. Let us imagine that, instead of purchasing a camera for £69.99, they could send the extra penny to bring water to an African village or to campaign for human rights in Burma. Which one of us would not do that? Pennies4Change is a new charity that has set up a mechanism for precisely such fundraising. It is efficient and convenient, with low overheads. It is quick, easy and spontaneous. With luck, it might also be habit-forming.
	Pennies4Change integrates seamlessly into the global financial payments system. On the card reader at the payment terminal, the customer will be discreetly invited to round up their transaction. One touch of the green button will round it up to the nearest pound. One touch of the red button will decline. If neither button is pressed within a couple of seconds, the default cuts in to decline and no donation is made, ensuring that there are no lengthy queues at the till. No new card is required, and the consumer does not need to sign up to anything. No staff intervention is needed. It simply involves a spontaneous choice with each purchase.
	For the retailer, too, the process is straightforward. No new hardware is required, just a small change to the software running alongside the existing payments chip and pin system, all co-ordinated through the card-acquiring bank. The innovative technology that makes Pennies4Change possible applies just as much to the local corner shop as to the large supermarket chains.
	Equally, the shared platform for all those retailers requires the collaborative effort of the acquiring banks. Pennies4Change gives the banks an opportunity to be seen to work together to enable the generosity of the British people to be released. It will drive down that 20 per cent. average overhead of charitable fundraising, increasing the effectiveness of charities, and it aims to improve their efficiency by promoting co-ordination and partnership.
	What, then, am I asking of my hon. Friend the Minister? First, I hope that he will wish to congratulate Pennies4Change on bringing charitable giving into the electronic age. Secondly—in the light of my points about income and gearing—I ask him to arrange for his officials, as part of their work on the third sector, to investigate how Government can help these charities to achieve their aims. I suggest that he ask his officials to meet members of Pennies4Change, who have already done much work in this area.
	Finally, I ask the Minister to recognise that the greatest threat to the success of this project lies in fragmentation. Pennies4Change is not about a few people giving occasionally; it is about the impact of millions of people giving very small amounts every day; it is about the power of pennies. However, its success will come from the simplicity of a single scheme that is undifferentiated across the country. Would my hon. Friend consider meeting a group of the major retailers and banks, which I would be happy to convene for him, in order to ensure that there is common and united action, and that different multiples and majors do not attempt selfishly to brand this good idea with their own logo, thus undermining the simplicity, integrity and national unity of the scheme?
	In the foreword that I quoted at the beginning, the Prime Minister went on to say:
	"At the heart of our approach is our desire to support those thousands of small community organisations who play such a vital role in our society. We want them to be free to access the funding or advice they need in a way that suits them."
	For 142,367 of the smallest charities in the United Kingdom, Pennies4Change does just that, and fulfils the Prime Minister's objective. I trust that the Minister will be able to support it.

Phil Hope: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) on bringing Pennies4Change to the House's attention. I also thank him for his kind remarks at the beginning of his speech in recognition of the work undertaken by the Office of the Third Sector and, indeed, my role as a champion of the third sector. This is the only country that has a Minister for the third sector.
	My hon. Friend spoke of the needs of the very smallest charities—those voluntary and community groups which, in every constituency in the country, are doing such vital front-line work with local communities. Our new grassroots grants funding programme will give those front-line, often volunteer-led organisations with very low turnovers and incomes access to grants. It will be rolled out later this year, and I hope that many of the smallest charities that my hon. Friend rightly celebrated will take advantage of it. It is an endowment scheme: the money that the Government provide can be used to set up local endowment funds. The endowment itself will never be spent, but the interest generated by it will be there, not just in one year but in continuing years, as a regular, sustainable stream of income providing small grants for those small front-line organisations.
	Let me now deal with the specific initiative raised by my hon. Friend—Pennies4Change. Like him, we want very much to encourage a culture of giving in this country. Pennies4Change in part helps to do that, and such projects are always of great interest to the Government.
	Almost three quarters of us regularly give to charity, and there are lots of new market developments and schemes that have the potential to increase charitable giving and therefore lead to more income going into the third sector. They can be very powerful in the arena my hon. Friend is talking about. Through innovative means such as Pennies4Change, people are encouraged to donate small sums or make small changes to their everyday behaviour, and that can make a huge difference.
	My hon. Friend mentioned a couple of such schemes, and I would like to mention a couple more. As anyone who has been on an aeroplane recently will know, under the British Airways "Change for Good" partnership with UNICEF people are encouraged on flights to donate small amounts of their left-over foreign currency. Since 1994, that has raised more than £18 million for charities. My hon. Friend mentioned an innovative mobile telephone scheme. There are new websites such as the "Everyclick" search engine, which encourages people to use its services, and every time they click, money gets donated to charities of their choice. There are charity credit cards, too, that donate to specific charities following every transaction. There are other schemes like Pennies4Change, which enable people to make small donations at the checkout. They have the potential to open up an entire new way of giving to significant numbers of people. This is therefore an important area of work, and I am very happy that people are showing concern about this issue and are willing to share ideas on how to increase charitable giving. It is important for further discussion to take place over the next few months about the implementation of such schemes and maximising the potential of the pennies in people's pockets, as my hon. Friend puts it.
	As my hon. Friend mentioned, the scheme has very attractive features: convenience, immediacy, spontaneity and the fact that it is quick and has low overheads. I will be happy to facilitate a meeting between my officials and all the relevant stakeholders—my hon. Friend listed many, and there may be others—to hear more about their plans and to find ways to overcome the potential pitfalls he described.
	Let me say a few words about our wider strategy on giving, in which schemes such as that my hon. Friend mentions sit, which includes engaging with primary and secondary schoolchildren to instil an ethos of giving, working with charities to help make the most of tax-effective giving, and just improving the evidence base so we can better meet the needs of donors and charities. Progress on all of that has been very good. For example, we are establishing the Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy to look at the huge number of organisations that exist and where the money goes. We have set it up with the Economic and Social Research Council to underline the importance of understanding giving: why people give, how they give, and how charitable giving can be encouraged and increased. The centre is intended to be a practical asset to the sector, developing valuable information for answering those questions for practitioners, and not just advancing academic knowledge but taking into account ideas such as those my hon. Friend described and then sharing them more widely.
	I am delighted to say that the centre is chaired by Professor Nick Deakin, a well known figure in the charity world, and it will be a "hub and spoke" model with programmes on a range of issues. The centre will be formally launched in the next few months. We would encourage all strategic partners and everyone within the sector to engage with the centre and make use of what it has to offer.
	In the same vein, and following up on our "A Generous Society" programme, "Go-Givers" is an initiative run by the Citizenship Foundation, funded by us, which has developed curriculum materials specifically for use in primary schools to raise awareness of charitable giving. Over the next three years, the programme will expand by training staff to act as co-ordinators. It will also provide increased support through its dedicated website, which already provides teaching plans to teachers, with the aim of registering 5,000 teachers by 2011. Since the programme was fully launched in June 2007, 975 teachers have already registered on the site from 650 schools, and about 17,000 primary schoolchildren are benefiting from the materials. In addition, more than 70 learning activities have been developed including eight original "Go-Giver" stories. The feedback from teachers has been universally positive. As children and young people learn about what charities are and what giving is about, they will tell their mums, dads, grandparents and other relatives about it when they go home, and we will start to see the spread of the culture of giving in the generous society that is the United Kingdom.
	With our funding, the Citizenship Foundation also delivers the giving nation challenge in secondary schools. The challenge brings together the goals of education about charities in the classroom and enlivening the school environment through extra-curricular charitable activity. It is a good scheme. The giving nation challenge gives a year group within a school £50 per class, and each class must then do as much good as it can with the money, using the rest of the school as an audience or as potential recruits. Each class acts as a mini charity, whereby the pupils act as fundraisers. They have the job of generating as much income or positive activity as they can. The £50 start-up money is then returned to provide money for the next year group's participation in the challenge. Some 144 schools have registered to take up that challenge and 85 have claimed the grant to get their project going, which means that about 22,000 pupils are involved across the country. I am delighted to be able to use the debate that my hon. Friend has brought to the House to announce that the project will continue with Office of the Third Sector funding over the next three years.
	A third element that we have been developing is gift aid. In 2006-07, gift aid was worth some £820 million to the charities sector. Following the recent gift aid consultation, the Government have further renewed their commitment to promoting that tax-effective giving. The relationship between gift aid and these other forms of mass giving, if I may call them that, is an interesting one to be explored. The package of measures set out in Budget 2008 by the Chancellor is good news for the charities sector—if I may say so, achieving it was a bit of a win for the Office of the Third Sector. In a tight fiscal climate, we have protected the interests of the third sector. By offering transitional relief at 22 per cent. over the next three years we have in effect protected some £300 million-worth of charities' income over that period. We are delighted that the charity world's response to that clear statement of commitment in pounds, shillings and pence to third sector income has been so positive.
	I return to the issue of small charities—those front-line groups to which my hon. Friend's scheme is desperate to feed income. We are providing funding for a small charities training programme, marketed to, and tightly focused on, charities that have a turnover of less than £1 million. We are also developing and facilitating an online gift aid mentoring forum. That bit of jargon means that we want to give some of those smaller charities and voluntary groups access to a network of experienced professional fundraisers and practitioners so that they, too, can benefit from gift aid and all that it delivers.
	My hon. Friend has mentioned a particular business initiative. I am delighted to say that businesses give in many different ways to charities across this country. In a way, we are most used to the role that businesses play in simply giving resources, be it through their corporate social responsibility packages or their work to support their local charities. Such giving, whether it is done through donations, community projects or sponsorship, is terrific. Businesses support charities in all manner of ways, but I would like to see them go that bit further.
	Perhaps some businesses could buy from the third sector, using their purchasing power so that those third sector organisations—social enterprises in particular—that are looking for sustainable sources of income to enable them to carry on doing what they do become more enterprising in how they generate that income. If we could get private sector organisations to build third sector organisations into their supply chains, be it in respect of basic supplies, services for their employees or even delivering its core business by buying from a third sector organisation, we would get so much more from them. To push it even further, what about investing in the third sector? Many charities, particularly small ones, find that access to funding and finance is one of the biggest barriers to their growth and development. Perhaps we could promote that, too.
	May I rather mischievously use this debate to announce an event called "Good Deals" that we are holding on 6 May to explore all the issues about how we might progress? I hope that Members will find an interest in that.
	I am delighted to return to the focus of my speech, and my hon. Friend's promotion of Pennies4Change. It is an extraordinarily positive way for individuals to give spontaneously and to make giving an integral part of their everyday lives, and it would be the cultural shift that he described, which is so important. He will appreciate that I am not allowed to endorse a specific proposal, but I thank him for highlighting the project and for giving us the chance to explore it in its initial stages and to see how it might contribute to the wider range of good work that I have tried to map out tonight which is being carried out in the sector as a whole. I shall certainly facilitate the meeting that he asked for to reinforce the initiatives that are already being championed by the Government through the Office of the Third Sector.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Seven o'clock.